SwordMaster

Thank you!

Yes indeed! When I was in the Marines and rededicated myself to God, He used me to cast demons out of people and evangelize...I could tell you stories about being attacked! That is why I am not afraid of them any more, I had so many encounters with them that it became custom-place. The more encounters I had, the less afraid of them I became. You still have to respect what they can do, but I have learned that I don't have to put up with their nonsense. Blessings!

Yes...there are more than a few instances where the physical manifestations of a disease were cause by demon possession, and on the other side of the coin, we do have to be careful when looking at such things because not all diseases are caused by demon possession. And yes, I have also thought of trying to find someone specially gifted at healing, but it seems like over the years fewer and fewer people have either been called to a healing ministry, or those who have been called have either side-lined themselves or have been side-lined by satan and they never recovered. Thank you for your input!

No, I have dealt with supernatural things and demons most of my adult life, there isn't anything like that going on here. What I believe has caused his biochemical brain issues (the OCD and severe depression) originated with his grandmother on his mother's side...she was a single mother of 7 because her husband left her. She had no help living in Michigan, and during the winter one year because she could not cut wood, she threw pieces of tires into the fireplace to keep from freezing. If you know anything about tires, you know that when burned they put off a multitude of toxins and chemicals like benzene that go into your body and stay there for decades, and they affect sex cells (eggs and sperm). This is what I believe is the cause of my children's issues. All biochemical, whether nerve endings failing to grow together, or hormones, or lack of enzymes that carry out jobs in the brain...what ever it is, it is physical, not spiritual. I have dealt with demons both outside of people as well as inside, to know what it feels like to be around one. The Holy Spirit will not allow them to hide from me. Thanks for your input!

Thank you for the link. What I said about hating God is that I wondered if I am strong enough not to hate Him if He allowed my son to commit suicide, but sometimes I do not word my thoughts correctly. Thanks again.

While my son does not have the genetic issues that you have talked about, many of the symptoms that you describe are what he experiences. I am so very sorry for what you have gone through, and I hope your life is better now. I pray every day for his healing, or even at least that God directs his physicians to prescribe a medication that He knows will help him until He heals him. Thank you for your time, I do really appreciate it.

I have dealt with the demon possessed in the past, he does not have a demon. But thank you.

I actually just started re-reading it a few days ago.

None that has worked, but that is besides the point. I want and ask God to intervene, and thus far - for some reason - He has chosen not to. My son suffers greatly, and it is horrible to hear him when it gets to be too much. I am trying to understand God's position here...the reason why He chooses NOT to stop his suffering. Thank you for replying.

I have an adult child who, about five-six years ago, started manifesting certain mental illnesses, and now physical genetic illnesses. He had three siblings that died in the womb, presumable from the same chemicals that are now wreaking havoc in his body. He suffers terribly from OCD thoughts and images in his mind that he cannot stop, and that (so far) medication has not helped with. I have been a Christian all my adult life, and have heard many things concerning what, how, and why God does or allows things...here is my utter frustration. When my son's OCD acts up, and on days becomes very bad, he yells, screams, pounds his head on walls, hits himself, pulls his hair out, etc., trying to make the voices in his head stop; but nothing works. I have had encounters with demons and the Lord has used me to cast them out of people in the past, but I do not "get" that this is the problem here. He suffers so badly that he wants someone to kill him, and he has turned to hate God because He will not heal him. That is where my frustration comes into play. I know that God can heal him on the spot, instantly; I have witnessed this in my own life several times. Yet I have sat in my living room crying out to God to heal him, for months now, and nothing...it's like God has died or something. I study Scripture; I know that in order for God to hear my voice, I must be abiding in Christ (I believe that I am), that I must walk in obedience to Him (I am, the only thing I do not do is go out witnessing to the lost, I really don't have the time or ability to do that); I am not asking for something to spend upon myself (James 4:3); and since Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil (and illnesses / diseases are his works)(I John 3:8), then I cannot for the life of me think that God does not want to heal him - yet He has demonstrated that for some reason, He is not willing to. At times I feel like I am going to lose my mind because of what goes on in my house, and I cannot understand why God would not want to heal my son. Is He trying to do something in me through my son's terrible suffering? I can't get that...but what? Why allow my son to suffer horribly, and get to the place where he just wants to kill himself, in order to work in my life? Right now I am very angry with Him...VERY angry, so angry that it scares me. Does anyone have some kind of experience or wisdom to help me cope with this? I need something, because if my son kills himself because God refuses for some reason to intervene, then I am afraid that I will hate - HATE - Him for it, and I don't want to go there. Thank you.

I have been coming here off and on now for several years, and the way people address certain issues here had me scratching my head for a while, so I need some clarification... I this a progressive "christian" site? Because some of the things I read here slant in that direction.

I agree...but there is a very real problem with some Christians, they don't understand Biblical love from worldly love. Biblical Godly love says that you correct those who are wrong, while worldly love says to be nice to people no matter what they say or believe. That kind of love sends people to eternal fire... Ezekiel 3:18-19 18 If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. Jude 1:22-23 22 Some people you can love into the Kingdom of God, making a difference in their lives that catches their attention; 23 but others will only respond to fear, drawing them out of the eternal fire that they are headed into; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. This is Godly love for people. We must be careful that we don't confuse worldly love for Godly love, because if we do then we will be held accountable for doing the wrong things, like letting people continue in false doctrine instead of trying to educate them with truth. Blessings

That's all assumption with no evidential support whatsoever. However...nothing here gives any kind of line of descent in evolutionary terms for describing how these timing mechanisms came into being. You are once again focusing on nothing that was my point. Side-stepping only demonstrates that you have no answer. Just confess that evolution can't answer the issue and move on...

This is true...as I stated earlier, 90% of those who claim to be Christians are not, they are religious or involved in churchianity or religiosity or simple deceived because they have no real relationship with God in Christ. Having stated that, what I said is not slander, because it is a general statement, not a detailed one. As far as catholics go...I know some who are devout to their religion, but that does not make them Christians. Christians do not worship Mary or pray to her and "saints" long dead...among numerous other false doctrines and practices within the RCC. So, unless you can quantify what a "Catholics that are solid Christians" actually practice, then your statement is null and void.

Again, you stand with those who claim that evolution is a fact, even when some things cannot be quantified by the theory. Second, I wasn't addressing you in that post. Third, your refusal to try and find an evolutionary creation of such things is truly telling. LOL! You are again side-stepping the point. Predators have nothing to do with the supposed evolution of timing mechanisms in nature...and all you have done is butt in on the insect timing mechanism, leaving the plant examples alone...truly telling. You lose again.

Sorry, but the apostles creed was never codified by any apostle, but by the RCC. It is the creed of catholics. Furthermore, no one is a Christian simply because they believe anything...if you think you are a Christian just because you believe in Christ, then you deceive yourself... John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever does not obey the Son will never know life, because the wrath of God remains abiding upon him. There are more, but one shall suffice. No one is a Christian because they believe the apostles creed, and claiming that nonsense should make all who read your post to take note. One is a Christian because they not only believe in Christ and God, but also in what His Word clearly states and teaches, and by walking in obedience to His Word and entering into covenant and personal relationship with God. That is what makes a person a Christian...not simply believing in Him, and certainly NOT because they believe a man-made creed that does NOT demonstrate the totality of what the Apostles taught. But, as I have stated before...nice try, but you fail again.

I have demonstrated that they could not evolve in the manner in which TOE claims to have taken place. The fact that you reject it does not make it not so...it only makes you a person that... Your imagination is running away with you, nothing can evolve in the manner in which TOE claims, and if you exercised your brain power for even a milli-second you might see it if your bias does not completely run your brain. Let's see if we can't get your brain exercised... Let's start with a worm. A simple organism. It has a mouth, anus, heart, basic nerve chord, gizzard, etc...no thyroid gland, no teeth or appendix, no eyes or ears, no arms or legs, etc. What happens to an appendage in human beings if all of the vascularization dies because of a disease? The entire appendage will die. What happens if all of the nerves are destroyed in that appendage? It becomes useless, will atrophy, turn black and die. What happens if all of the layers of dermis is removed from that appendage? It will die. What happens if there is no muscle in that appendage? It becomes non-functional. What happens if there are no bones in that appendage? It will become useless and become a hazard to the person it is attached to. Now, go back to the worm...in a population of worms, one incurs a mutation that causes a small mass of hard matter to be coded for. A few million years go by and in that population another mutation hits that confers upon a worm a small blob of flesh hanging on the outside of its body...completely useless. Can you give us any kind of clear, plausible line of descent genetically, mutation-wise, that might cause a population of worms to some day give way to a functional arm, complete with skin, bone, innervation, musculature, and vascularization? The facts of nature dictates that you cannot because it is not possible. A piece of bone might show up...but with no muscle, innervation, vascularization, etc., that piece of bone is useless...more like a tumor than anything else. There is no plausible step-by-step mutational happens stance that can build a functional living arm piece by piece. In fact, the entire body of any organism is irreducibly complex. Now, I know that you can probably make up some form of argument against IC when it comes to proteins and enzymes (which, in itself, holds no water), but the entire organism is different. To claim that evolution lead from a single celled organism into a human being (or anything else for that matter) means that you put more faith in fairy tales than in what God's Word clearly teaches.

He is wrong, just like so-called "christians" who believe homosexuals are not abominations in God's sight. Plus, in truth, what you have given above is only drawings of certain appendages of certain organisms...there are not linear lines of progression from one to another, only make-believe imaginary lines connecting them according to the wild and unscientific imaginations of evolutionary theorists. Like Mayr said, what runs evolutionary science is not scientific facts and experimentation or observation of change - instead, it is run by the imaginations of theorists giving us their assumptions on how they believe evolution took place. That is not science, sir...that is fairy tale composition. Try again, you failed again...

I will correct you only once more on this issue: change of allele frequency of a population over time is adaptation, not molecules to mule evolution. You keep referring back to this nonsense on every turn, refusing to acknowledge the clear implications of the facts of nature. New mutations destroy existing information, they do not add alleles to existing genetic information, they only add bio-entropy into the mix that destroys the specificity of existing genes. There are no examples in the real world of mutations (aside from duplications) that add information to an organism's genetic profile, they only destroy information regardless of whether that damage confers some kind of benefit to that population (again, like SCA). You can keep touting that lame story over and over again, but it does not lead to "macroevolution" as it is called, only adaptation. Adaptation does not lead from one species into another, that has never been codified, only told in just-so story telling. Either you don't listen too well, or you don't understand what I stated. A protein is NOT a phenotypic character...do you understand what the phenotype is? It is a physical, observable trait...arms, legs, fingers, toes, ears, hooves, snout, fins, whiskers, etc., etc... How in the world do you think I am supposed to take you seriously when you don't even know what you are talking about? Plus, you don't know what you are talking about here, either. The enzyme that allows people to metabolize milk is found in every human being, but after a certain age the human body normally ceases to produce large quantities of the enzyme. Those who can still metabolize milk have suffered a mutation that continues producing the enzyme after it is normally switched off because humans after a certain age no longer need to sustain life with only milk. Please, try to at least get your facts straight before... Wrong again, unless the appearance of the wheat changed, you are not addressing a phenotype again. Furthermore, the wheat did not suffer a mutation, it was purposely groomed in order to produce the adaptation. You call any genetic change as a mutation, when not all genetic change is a mutation...typical evolutionist blundering and deception upon those who know no better. It won't work on me. Try again, do far you are still failing... Another example that you don't have a clue about what you claim. Read the above sentence again, several times, even slowly. The article claims to have analyzed the changes in genes DURING vertebrate adaptation to land...REALLY!!! Who was there that witnessed these changes? Who was there during those changes taking place? This is the problem...evolutionists make matter of fact statements based upon scant evidence (if any at all) concerning evolutionary changes, and people like you can't see past their words because your bias is completely saturated by TOEist nonsense brain washing. You cannot look at the genes of an organism and claim any actual change unless you are keeping close tabs on a living population. To claim anything else is pure lies. Dobzhansky fruit fly experiments completely destroyed what you keep trying to make us believe. No matter the phenotypic changes that he managed to produce in his fruit fly experiments in effort to prove evolution from single celled organisms to the vast majority of life on earth, whatever he managed to cause through mutation (extra halters, legs where antennae were supposed to be, etc.), when those populations were left to themselves the natural order of the genetic framework REVERSED the mutations and those flies descendants went back to normal. This is how God made organisms to be. Once again, you failed...I would suggest that you stop believing the nonsense lies of evolutionary scientists and start believing what Scripture says in every facet. People better than you have tried to demonstrate falsities in the Bible and have never succeeded, and many came to be believers after trying to do so. Evolutionary theory is just another failed attempt.

LOL! You avoided the point altogether. And, its not my place to demonstrate that such unseen mechanisms can not evolve - it is YOUR position in protecting TOE to show that they did. Its not about predation or prime numbers...its about how they remain underground for 13/17 years and then for no apparent reason, erupt from the ground by the millions. Its about how the timing mechanism...whether it is physical or spiritual, where is it, how did it come to be, etc. TOE has no answers for these, and if TOE was true, then there would be an evolutionary answer. It goes right back to Paley...that watch that you found on the ground, you instantly know that it was created by an intelligent designer. To think that it could come together piece by piece over billions of years is quite ludicrous. But, again, nice try, but you fail again.

Oh...so now you are playing word games because you cannot stand otherwise. Nice try, but you lose again. They do not uphold it, if they did then they would state that they believe God created through evolution...which is quite absurd for anyone who claims to be a Christian to uphold. For claiming to be so intelligent, you demonstrate very little in this argument...catholics are not Christians. Perhaps you need to refresh your memory and go over church history again. The RCC ceased to be Christian after Constantine produced his Edict of Milan, and Roman citizens began attending catholic mass along with the other gods of Rome. There is such a difference between what the RCC and actual Biblical churches teach that when the Reformation started, the RCC was burning Christians at the stake. You are not as astute in the facts that you believe yourself to be. For that matter, the current pope is a clear apostate, claiming that the earth has become sentient somehow and that we must help "mother nature" to survive and keep "Gaia" alive through various means. He is a UN stooge used by them to promote their new world order and their new world religion. Read Revelation again (that is, if you believe what it says), because this is prophesied about...the blending of religion called the Great Whore. Again, you make a lot of false "matter of fact" statements, just like a true evolutionist! Congratulations! However, you are deceived here again. As a good conservative assumption based upon numerous polling entities, it is a good position that 90% of those who claim to be Christian today are not, so your claim is moot on several points. Do some research...many of what was once called mainline Christian denominations are not apostate, like the Presbyterian church denominations, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, Mennonite church organizations, the United Church of Christ, and the two denominations of the Methodist churches, just to name a few. You count apostate "christians" as Christians, and they are not. It sounds like you really need to stop messing with TOE for a while and study what Scripture teaches. You can't follow Christ and be a true Christian if you believe things contrary to what Scripture actually teaches. James says that this is how you deceive yourself into thinking that you are walking with God, when you actually are not.

LOL! Once again, it is not an assumption, it is a fact... Let me be more precise - there are no evolutionary predictions that stand up to scrutiny that predict evolutionary molecule to man speciation. Don't play dumb, you know what I am talking about. Sure there were dinosaurs with feathers, a true prediction would be that dinosaurs gave way to birds, which has never been proven outside of assuming TOE in the first place, which is tautology, not clear scientific statements. Wrong again, buck-o. First, every so-called whale with legs were not whales, they were creatures like beavers and such that lived in an aquatic environment. Making the claim that a species of land animal with fangs drank blood for food just because vampire bats also have fangs and drink blood for food is really quite moronic. Yet these are the types of claims that evolutionists make hoping that all of us are as moronic as they are and will believe it just because they claim it. Second, you cannot claim that a whale like creature had functional legs unless and until you see that creature actually walking on land. Ostriches have wings and feathers, yet they cannot fly...as well as other examples. you truly have taken the hook, line, and sinker without using your brain to actually examine in detail the nonsense that you believe. No, we don't. What we have, are the fossilized remains of organisms that evolutionist have made cladograms and the like of in order to give the appearance of transitional forms from one group of organisms supposedly into another. Wrong again...and again...and again. With all of the millions of fossil remains that we have today, if what you claim was true, we should have at least ONE clear cut example of the line of descent from, say, a squirrel like creature to a wolf line creature (as an example). And yet we do not. Not even one. Instead, we have "family trees" from a single supposed ancestor with unfilled-in branches that the original supposedly gave rise to - with absolutely no evidence for those branches at all. There isn't just one "missing link," there are thousands of them in the theory. Again, this is not evolution, this is adaptation. This "prediction" was not ever predicted by evolution, it is predicted by population genetics. Try again. Again, this was not predicted by evolution, it is predicted by genetics. Now, IF you have positive evidence that followed the hereditary line backwards from man to single celled organism, THEN it would be an evolutionary prediction. You are so confused by the lies TOE spins that you cannot tell the difference between a prediction from biology to that of a false theory, and part of your problem is that you assume evolution into the equation without ever thinking about what you are claiming. That is not science. Again, a prediction that is from a medical science, NOT the false theory of evolution from single celled organism to man. Yes...and AGAIN...this is not an evolutionary prediction, it is a prediction from genetics. You are laboring under the false ideology that all science falls under TOE, and in that is your greatest weakness and fault. Well...since you have failed to produce even a single one, why don't you just keep going until you can find one that IS actually a prediction of the theory of evolution, and not from genetics, heredity, biology, etc. So far, you have failed...again.

LOL! Its not an assumption, it is a fact. Since evolutionary theory cannot account for life on earth AT ALL, your "test" is moot. Try again.

You keep referring only to Darwin...it doesn't matter what he thought, what matters is what those who came behind him in trying to prove his nonsense ideas. Numerous evolutionists before the 1960's taught that evolution began life, which is why they started all of the hundreds of origin of life experiments and failed in every one of them. You seem to like to ignore all of the facts and only bring up those you think help your argument...not surprising, because that is what evolutionists do.

LOL! No, I am not speaking about adaptation which is built into the organism's genetic code already, just waiting for the right conditions through environmental cues to activate certain genes. I am specifically referring to the FACT that mutations do not lead to the production of a novel phenotypic character (for the benefit of those reading who might not know what that is...an example would be a fish incurring mutations over time that would build an arm or leg). Fish do not have the genetic instructions for arms or legs, and no amount of mutation can build the genetic blue-prints for arms or legs in fish. Nice try, but you fail again.