Saturday, September 21, 2013


Do not be decieved by those who claim to have died and met with God and were given codes of conduct and score card and ordained as global ecclesiatical umpires for every human being on earth. They are not to be taken seriously for God can not go contrary to His word and the word of God is not to be given a personal interpretation . God does not have umpires in the church. These self acclaimed prophets or prophetesses are nothing but mere dreamers . Jeremiah 23.25

"Let no one defraud you by acting as an umpire and declaring you unworthy and disqualifying you for the prize, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions [he claims] he has seen, vainly puffed up by his sensuous notions and inflated by his unspiritual thoughts and fleshly conceit, :And not holding fast to the Head, from Whom the entire body, supplied and knit together by means of its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. :If then you have died with Christ to material ways of looking at things and have escaped from the world’s crude and elemental notions and teachings of externalism, why do you live as if you still belong to the world? [Why do you submit to rules and regulations?—such as] AMP:Do not handle [this], Do not taste [that], Do not even touch [them], Referring to things all of which perish with being used. To do this is to follow human precepts and doctrines. Such [practices] have indeed the outward appearance [that popularly passes] for wisdom, in promoting self-imposed rigor of devotion and delight in self-humiliation and severity of discipline of the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh (the lower nature). [Instead, they do not honor God but serve only to indulge the flesh.]" COLOSSIANS 2.18-23 Amplified . Bible.            
NB. Do feel free to share this post you could be saving a life.

Thursday, September 5, 2013


Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements

Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure .Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible

Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design Lack of understanding of basic and established principles of physics and engineering

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see also: Falsifiability)

Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience"

Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa

Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience: This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation), but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing).

Presentation of data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. Reversed burden of proof: In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.

Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to dismiss negative findings.

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference"):  Some proponents of ideas that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.
Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data so others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.

Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary knowledge when an independent review of data or methodology is requested.

Absence of progress

Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims ,Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia. 
Lack of self-correction:
scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time. By contrast, ideas may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience. Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated, and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.

Personalization of issues

Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.

Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results

Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy)

Use of misleading language

Creating scientific-sounding terms to add weight to claims and persuade nonexperts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless: For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled. Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.


Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.  Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.  Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.

Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.

The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience has ethical political implications, as well as philosophical and scientific issues. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.  Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.

The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience usually dispute the characterization.

While the standards for determining whether a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice is scientific can vary from field to field, a number of basic principles are widely agreed upon by scientists. The basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible, and able to be verified by other individuals. These principles aim to ensure experiments can be measurably reproduced under the same conditions, allowing further investigation to determine whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is both valid and reliable. Standards require the scientific method to be applied throughout, and bias will be controlled for or eliminated through randomization, fair sampling procedures, blinding of studies, and other methods. All gathered data, including the experimental or environmental conditions, are expected to be documented for scrutiny and made available for peer review, allowing further experiments or studies to be conducted to confirm or falsify results. Statistical quantification of significance, confidence, and error are also important tools for the scientific method.



John 12:28 "Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it

JOHN 12:20-28
This verse makes it clear that it was a voice that the Father spoke in; however, there were different reports of the same event. Some people heard a voice and thought it was an angel who spoke. Others thought it was thunder.

This is a confirmation that  "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). A carnal man with a hardened heart will always find some natural explanation for the supernatural even if he heard an audible voice from God.

A hard heart keeps us from perceiving spiritual truths and stops us from understanding. When a person doesn't understand God's Word, Satan finds no resistance when he comes to steal it away. A hard heart keeps us from remembering. The hardened heart always forgets valuable  spiritual lessons that have been learned . Likewise, some people can quote scripture or remember what the sermon was about, but they lack insight into  the spiritual life in it or and can't retain what they did perceive, because of a hardened heart.

Jesus didn't need to hear this audible voice of God because he had a more sure word of prophecy than the audible voice of God from heaven (2 Pet. 1:18-20). Jesus knew the "voice" of the Old Testament scriptures that spoke of the Christ being glorified and He could also hear the Father's voice in His heart as He had on so many other occasions. This audible voice didn't come to reassure Jesus, but it came to those who had ears to hear, so that they might believe.Receive healing in your heart and grace to recognize God' voice now in Jesus name.

Monday, September 2, 2013


Luke 16:22 "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and
was buried;"
LUKE 16:19-31
This story is not a parable but an event that really took place and clearly teaches that there is life after death. It shows that there is no
"soul sleep" where our souls are awaiting the resurrection of our bodies, but we go into a conscious eternity immediately. It also shows
that there are only two destinations possible after death. We either go to a place of torment for the wicked or a place of blessing for the
righteous. There is no "limbo" or "purgatory" and there is no second chance, illustrating the finality of our eternal destiny once we die.
Abraham's bosom is a symbolic term designating a place of comfort for the righteous dead. It was located in the heart of the earth, in the
same region as hell, where the ungodly dead go. The rich man's body was in the grave and yet this scripture speaks of him lifting up his
eyes and seeing Lazarus in Abraham's bosom. Our soul mirrors our physical shape so closely that it is recognizable. It is probable that
one's soulish body is an exact duplicate of their physical body.
Part of this man's torment was from the flames. However, he was also tormented by the thought of his loved ones' lives on earth and their
eternal destiny. Surely his helplessness to warn them would make his misery worse.
Also, the fact that he could see Lazarus and Abraham in a place of total blessing and comfort would keep him from ever adjusting to his
In the light of Jesus' words, we can see that hell will be much more than just a place of physical torment. Those who are consigned to that
place will also be tormented with the thoughts of what could have been if they had trusted Jesus. The greatest witness that anyone could
ever receive is the witness from God's Word. The gospel is the "power of God unto salvation".
Share God's word of Salvation today and experience a lift in Jesus name.