October 31, 2008

Objections to Intelligent Design Refuted!

William A Dembski & Sean McDowell came up with a top ten list that speaks against Intelligent Design and responds to them in their book "Understanding ID". They both can be viewed here discussing their work in this part 1 of 4 interview:

(part 2, part 3, part 4)

I wanted to explore some of the 'Top Ten' to see how many of you feel about these points. They were listed in an article I read in Christian Research Journal.

ID must explain who designed the designer.

Dawkins raised this criticism against Design in The God Delusion. ID fails because it doesn't explain the Designer's designer. If we can't answer this then Dawkins claims "it's fruitless."

Is this how science works? Can scientists only accept explanations that themselves have been explained? The real problem with this objection is that it is always possible to ask for further explanation. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason observed, "An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have and explanation for the explanation"

For example, if an archaeologist discovers an ancient object that looks like an arrowhead or digging tool, she would be fully justified in drawing a design inference. In fact, after a few clear instances she would be irrational not to infer design. She may have no clue as to the origin or even the identity of the designer, but certain patterns that the artifacts would point beyond natural forces to the work of an intelligent designer.

If every explanation needed a further explanation then nothing could ever be explained! If designer B was responsible for having designed designer A, then who designed B? Designer C of course and so on. Given the infinite regress of explanations, nothing could ever be explained and science itself would come to a standstill!

ID is Not Testable

The criticism is meant to disqualify ID as a science. If by "testable" we mean that a theory should be open to confirming or disconfirming evidence, then ID most certainly passes the test. Darwin presented what he regarded as strong evidence against design. So, claiming that ID has been tested by such evidence and shown to be false, however, creates a catch-22 for the critic: If evidence can count against a theory, evidence must also be able to count in favor of a theory. That knife must cut both ways.

Researchers have confirmed the evidence for ID across a wide range of disciplines including molecular biology, physics, and chemistry. (Design of Life)

Even if critics reject the evidence for ID, in the very act of rejecting the evidence, they put design to the test. (which is exactly what they do when no one is looking, I suspect)

Imagine what would happen if microscopic investigation revealed the words "Made by Yahweh" inscribed in the nucleus of every cell. The point is we wouldn't know this unless we actually "tested" cells for this sign of intelligence, which we couldn't do if ID were not testable. If ID fails, it won't be for lack of testability. I might add, unless the critics are afraid?

Obviously these are not all Ten, I will be addressing the rest in subsequent posts. Stay tuned!

October 29, 2008

Radical Skepticism

A good article I just read was from a magazine I received called Christian Research Journal. The article was called "Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism" by Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD.

Breggen gave, quite convincingly, counters for many of the different type of skepticisms. I was hoping it was online, but it isn't, so here is the Reader's Digest version.

Funky/Pop skepticism, a good example is the Matrix movies that claims nothing we see, hear, taste, or touch is real.

The Doctor's five counters included imagining the doubt isn't the same as actually to doubt or imagining isn't doubting. To think otherwise is to conflate two distinct cognitive categories. Another is mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions.

Sensory skepticism, our scenes deceive us, thus we cannot know the external world. When strolling on along railroad tracts, I see that the metal rails look straight and parallel, but on the horizon they appear to meet or a mirage in the desert of water.

A rational reply would be first always does not follow logically from sometimes. Our senses' prima facie veridicality- that is, their very apparent truthfulness, remains. Senses are innocent until proven guilty, as long as we have no overriding reason to doubt them, as long as we are careful.

Immanuel Kantian skepticism, the external world in rose colored, subjective glasses.

A rational reply would be if Kantian skepticism is true then science's search for causal connections/laws ultimately is a search for connections/laws that are not really in the world but in our heads. Second, as Jim Leffel astutely observes, "The success of scientific technology is a strong argument that our perceptions of the world are relatively accurate. Countless achievements attest to the reliability of human knowledge [including our knowledge of the causal principle]. We can engineer enormously sophisticated rockets to propel men to the moon, and provide health care that has more than doubled human life expectancy. We couldn't do these things without an essentially reliable correspondence between our ideas of reality and reality itself."

Linguistic skepticism Kind of a postmodern philosophizing, we cannot know truth about the world in an objective way because of the distorting effect of language.

There is no objective truth; each community has it's own mere 'story' or 'narrative'
There is no objective rationality; we reason in language, which is culture-dependent.
There are no objective ethics; values are relative to culture, too.
Therefore power rules; the dominating culture group ultimately controls the language (wittingly or unwittingly), so it determines "truth," rationality, and ethics.

A rational reply would be it is simply not the case that language is completely defined by other language. There is such a thing as ostensive definition. Objective truth and principle of noncontradiction arguments apply. Moral relativism can be seriously challenged. Poking pins into baby's eyes for fun surely is wrong for everyone, everywhere, and always. (hey, that sounds familiar) The fact that language and power are often intertwined is ground for caution not radical skepticism. Language is not wholly a power play; we are capable of communicating knowledge.

The article concluded with this brilliant nugget:

It turns out that because we can know at least some of the external world (in a limited way), we can find reasonable evidence for the existence of God. Scientifically based evidence and good reasoning lead us to believe that the universe had a beginning; that it was caused; that cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time; that the arrangement of the universe was fine-tuned for life; and that life itself-the cell's molecular machines and DNA's code/language- is exquisitely fine tuned. All of this points to an intelligent and powerful supernatural cause. Historical investigation of the external world gives is further reason to believe the New Testament's witness concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. In other words, the external world points us to the Christian worldview, the gospel, and a reasonable faith in Jesus Christ.

I found Hendrik van der Breggen's blog and will be checking in often.

October 24, 2008

Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery

Stan recently said to me "You don't support slavery, but you support a god who regulates slavery." among other things that I will address in time.

I want to get the record straight once and for all about this slavery issue. It gets thrown in my face quite often as an ad hominem to discredit God.

The Bible denounces slavery as sin and goes as far to put slave traders in the same boat as murderers (1 Timothy 1:10)

Plus we have to use our proper hermeneutics to see what the Bible actually says about slavery.

Back in the days of Leviticus slavery was sanctioned due to economic reasons. Back then, there were no such thing as bankruptcy laws so people would sell themselves into slavery to rectify debts. A craftsman could use his skills to literally "pay off" a debt. Or a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave. (Exodus 22:3)

The Bible recognizes the reality of slavery, but it never promotes the practice of slavery. It was the biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States.

One has to only go far as to think why the Jews left Egypt in the first place to see God's view of slavery. It took some years in America to wake up to the realization of biblical truth that all people are created by God with innate value. (Genesis 1:27, Acts 17:26-28, Galatians 3:28)

Obama, in my opinion a possible candidate for the Antichrist, couldn't respect God in June, 08 and made some snide comment:

"Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? ..."

Twisting of the Scriptures was the main source of this post.

UPDATE: A man named Glenn M. Miller wrote about this subject. This rather detailed study connects the fact quite well.

Does God condone slavery in the Bible? OT and Does God condone slavery in the Bible? NT

God doesn't Condone Slavery!


October 23, 2008

All is Fair in Love and War?

After being called many names for advertising my position on a very small level, I thought I would show an article my wife found. The article begins "London buses have God on their side — but not for long, if atheists have their way." (full article)

The difference here is exposure, atheists win that fight hands down on this one. Should we move to counter attack?

UPDATE: I guess I spoke too soon. They are now campaigning here in the states also.

Remember, "being good" will not get you to heaven.

This post here reminded me of my very first post on atheists, ah good times.

October 20, 2008

Sincerity towards Hard Hearts

Y'all do understand we are here to help, not hurt right? Do you reject the sincerity from believers that care enough about you to spend the time to talk to you to get you to really understand the fate of all of us? I was reading the sincerity of a guy writing to an atheist and I enjoyed what was written so much I just wanted to share it with all of you:

"I really, truly know and understand where you are coming from, before I was saved, I thought many of the thoughts you do. I was more of an agnostic than an atheist, I believed that there "may" be a god, but really had no clue. I believed in the theory of evolution, not so much because I had examined the claims, but because it was what I was taught to be true. If you want to pass biology you fill in the little choice box that the teacher says should be filled in, right?

Months before God saved me and opened my eyes to the truth, I lived a, well, sordid life, I not only thought sinful thoughts, I lived many of them out, I was "bad", really bad, but the funny thing I thought I was a pretty "good" guy deep down, I just wanted to live my own life, be in control of me. I didn't hear Ray or any other preacher, I actually heard some evolution scientist on some radio show talk about Carl Sagan and I started looking into some of his research, then it led me to more, and more, until I came across some site about prophecy and theories about Jesus Christ and the whole bit, the did He exist debate, I think you know what I mean. Anyway I decided, if what Jesus claims is wrong then Christianity is a lie, but if what He claims is true, then I have some serious thinking to do. That day I picked up a bible, of which I had only read a handful of verses ever before in my life, and started reading the new testament. I was surprised, it was nothing like what the movies portrayed, it was more detailed about His life, He clearly claims to be God, the God, the ONLY God, well, if this, Jesus is God then what He says better line up with what I know to be true, evolution, what I think is right and wrong, and He had better let me control my own life. Well, what I read was the complete opposite of what I thought was true.

I was quite angry at the ideas in the bible, really I was stunned at the claims. No way, this can't be true, if it is, then I've been living a lie, the world is deceived and we are all headed for Hell. I mean this IS what the bible teaches, isn't it?

Well that's what I thought it taught. Like many who post here, I thought God was some cosmic meany, I mean why create us, why let all this evil just happen, and why kill you only Son? I didn't "really" understand the bible, I just read it and picked out things that I didn't agree with, or things that made me look bad, I didn't ask why. When I did start asking why, and really asking God, why, then He started answering. Not in voices, or visions, but as I read and reread it started making sense.

Life really isn't about me, except in my own head, it's called pride. I started to see that this God who claims to have created everything is holy, doesn't change, righteous, and frighteningly enough, JUST! I listened to a couple preachers on the internet, and they helped me understand that it is not Gods will that I go to Hell, and then explained my sin, Gods holiness, and then about Jesus Christ. And this is what I understood. God is Lord, Jesus is God, God created us in His image to glorify Him, we sinned, we keep sinning, and living for self or other people, not Him, He did a lot of things providentially in and throughout the Old testament in order to point to the coming of His Son, Jesus Christ who would save mankind from their sins against Him. Jesus came and took the punishment, the wrath of God against the sin of the world, upon Himself, SO THAT we could be saved, to provide A WAY to not get what we deserve, justice. As I read and as I listened God did a work in me, it was a work of repentance, I was justified, saved. I know it wasn't because of lack of intelligence, I'm not stupid, I'm Joe average, like most people. It was because God sovereignty chose to save me. It was then that I realized, the reason I asked the questions I did, the reason I opened the bible that day, the reason I read and listened with an open heart is not because of me, but because God is God and He is God of EVERYTHING, and He does what He will. I didn't "choose" to be a Christian, and if you would have asked me that morning, I probably would have laughed it off, but I didn't laugh that afternoon. I wept, and wept and I realized whom against I had sinned, my Lord and my God, Jesus Christ. Forgive me, oh God forgive me. It was the worst and the best day of my life.

Worst because I finally saw myself in truth, not as I wanted to see myself, but as I really am, a filthy, wretched, sinner. And best because God chose to save ME! Little me, the God of the universe actually cares about me, no not cares, actually loves me. Not because of who I am, be in spite of who I am. WOW. What a God, I spit in His face in the morning, and He forgives me in the afternoon. Praise God.

I don't believe the bible because I was convinced by man, but by God, and I don't think any man can convince anybody in becoming a Christian, I think it is a work of God alone. There is nothing in man that attains toward the true God of the bible, it is only when God draws a man to Himself that the man will begin to draw near to God. It is all the work of God. I know this is very Calvinistic, but it is what Jesus taught, what Paul taught. Before anyone can repent God must change their heart.

I don't know who God will save, that is His choice, but He has commanded me to go and preach the gospel. And I know it is the gospel, the word of God, the bible, that God uses to create, command, and save mankind, whom He saves and when He saves is up to Him alone.

We all in rebellion to Jesus Christ our Lord, all of us. But He commands ALL men everywhere to repent, but we don't want to, we want to be our own lords. So He must work in the hearts of those He is saving before they will repent, only then will we surrender, and stop shaking our fist, only then will we bend our knee and praise Him who alone is worthy, the sinless lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

He is your Lord, and you will bow your knee. The question is will you bend your knee to Him as Lord on the day of judgment, or will you bend your knee today as Lord AND Savior?

Please don't just write this of as some religious nonsense. Be honest about it. Ask the tough questions, have you sinned, you know, lie, stolen... You've heard this all before. If you are truly honest with yourself, you know you have, and before you justify it by saying, "yeah but...", really think about, think about what the bible says about God, not what unsaved man says, unregenerate man hates God, they will say anything to try to make Him look bad. What does the bible actually say.

Most importantly what is TRUE. Not what do you believe to be true, not what seems to make the most "logical" sense, but what is really, actually true?

I will be praying for you to God, may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ shine down on you." (ShiVeR)Curtis

October 14, 2008

Overwhelming Evidence

What would happen if a court of today put the validity of Jesus Christ and the resurrection on trial?

Christ would win. There is plenty of evidence that points to a Creator and that Creator communicated with us through His Word.

Jesus Christ came to die on a cross to take the punishment that we deserved in order to save us. In order to do this he had to be resurrected. So, were the eyewitnesses credible?

Simon Greenleaf, a principal founder of the Harvard Law School, in 1874 wrote a paper, available online, called "The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administrated in courts of justice" where he took Jesus and the Bible to trial.

His postulation was that the Bible follows the 'ancient documents rule' that "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise"

Spoiler alert!

Greenleaf sums up his argument:

"All that Christianity asks of men on this subject, is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with the surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witnesses being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result,it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth ... Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard" (pp. 46 & 53).

Greenleaf came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection happened.

If you were a jury member would you come to the same conclusion? As an atheist would you put aside your bias and rule properly according to the Law?

UPDATE 1/16/2009:

I took this from a legalese website discussing documents:

[section 491 mandates that the statement be given under oath, affirmation, or some other form of legally binding assertion, such as a statement at the bottom of an income tax return that the answers were given and the signature subscribed "under penalties of perjury." Although it may be morally reprehensible for a person to lie, no legal criminal sanction is imposed for lying until after a person has sworn to tell the truth. Hence, the State must allege and prove that the statement was given under oath or affirmation administered by an authorized person, or under some other form of legally binding assertion.]

In other words assertions are legally binding when said under oath.

I am willing to claim that God exists under oath, would anyone be willing to claim, under oath, that invisible pink hammers exists or the flying spaghetti Monster exists?

Using The Bible in God proofs is not circular reasoning and is the well-established way in which we establish the truth of understanding God. (Thanks, Kaitlyn)

Mere assertion of X (flying spaghetti monster) is not equal to adequate justification of X. (God)


October 10, 2008

World Wide Economic Meltdown by Ray Comfort

Allow me to parrot Ray today. What if you all start to see the Bible come true? Would you acknowledge it? Would you understand that you have been wrong all along?

"Those of you who are regular atheists must be getting worried. Not about the future, but about the fact that you know what the Bible had to say about the future. I watched CBS news this morning. This is how it began:

"Breaking News. Global market’s plummet this morning after Wall Street’s nearly 900 billion dollar loss on Thursday. Credit markets around the world are seized up in a manner no one has ever seen before."

We are seeing Bible prophecy being fulfilled before our very eyes. Experts have long predicted that we would see a world-wide economic collapse, a one-world government, and the raising up of a charismatic world leader that will bring peace and stability and will not let people buy and sell without a mark...

As this unfolds, it is slowly dawning on you that the Bible is right, and that all those "mistakes" you found in the Bible were actually your mistakes. And that leads to a sobering revelation. It means that Hell is real. So, what are you going to do? I have a suggestion. Humble yourself, then admit you were wrong, and get right with God through repentance and faith in Jesus. Then begin to reach out to the lost with the same zeal you had as an atheist." Ray Comfort

October 7, 2008

Response to Froggie


Thanks for the melodramatically false post you made, it was quite comical.

No, Poe's Law isn't applicable here but lets get all the facts straight:

First false statement you melodramatically made: "What's worse is that she suffers from Lupus and has had tumors that recently came back."

No my wife doesn't have Lupus my mother did, like Quasar pointed out, but you have yet to correct that part of the blog so you are continually perpetuating a lie. For dramatic purposes?

2nd misrepresentation: "and has had tumors that recently came back."

You know this for a fact? I had no idea you were a doctor with superman's abilities to see through things like skin and bones.

My words were: "the symptoms returned again recently. We feared it was coming back right after our 4th child, she was getting pretty shook up about it. This time we decided to do a 40 day fast and keep in prayer to stop the growth and hope for a miracle from God.

Well, it appears we got our wish and the tumor disappeared with no more signs during the fast (headaches, blurred vision, sinus troubles ...)"

I will admit I may have scared you pretty little head slightly Froggie. I kept calling it a tumor but it actually is a Cyst. 'Rathke's Cleft Cyst' to be technically accurate. It is a balloon of puss growing on the pituitary. It is Non-Cancerous! Some inexperienced doctors might just clip the pituitary off to eliminate it but the Pioneer, Dr. Kelly, uses very high tech camera equipment and goes through the sinus cavity to remove and drain the Cyst without disturbing the Pituitary. He is a very blessed and talented man that I wouldn't know what to do without him. I thank God for putting him so close to us. We were very healthy and three years after moving to California she came down with this problem. You have to understand that before that in Colorado Springs and Texas we owed our own company and to pay for all that out of our own pocket would of bankrupted us. But this Company hear of Patty's tallent and gave us an offer we couldn't refuse. To me, it wasn't coincidental that we happen to be extremely close the the very best Doctor in the entire United States to operate on her.

If you didn't know the pituitary controls the woman's cycles and Patty didn't have any for two years (since Nov, 2006) so it did worry us that we wouldn't have any more children then our three already. The symptoms started getting worse when Patty was breastfeeding our third child (pituitary controls that also) so we went on a long year journey of new baby #3, many hospitals, meetings, and surgeries, at UCLA Hospital at the time.

Immediately after the third surgery Patty got pregnant after her very first (very light) cycle. It was a miracal!

Dr. Kelly was promoted and is now Director of the John Wayne Cancer Institute at St. John's in Santa Monica.

We were all astounded and truly felt we were blessed with a miricle. We were so happy it was over and received a new miricle baby at the end of it. Incidentally all my kids have my personality, but this 4th one is all for Patty, looks and acts just like her. He is the boy version of Patty who was incidentally, an only child. Just another one of lifes coincidences that could be just written off if you're not looking for these things.

The Skeptical Sorcerer said "Whatever he is doing, if he doesn't stop I at least hope he doesn't make his kids join in."

Funny you said this but my 7 year old wanted to join in but I said I would allow it for only one day. So she did but was sad because she was very hungry at bedtime. She was very cute and understood how difficult it was and was a true helper during the 36 days we were fasting. She witnesses more then most adults I know. That little girl at age 5 wanted to and did memorize the Ten Commandments she is my little angel and God has great things in store for her, I just know it. If you need help memorizing go to smartyface.com

It appears the only sane person at this group here is not an atheists at all, named 'LivingAsOneFreed'.

You guys should rename yourselves the "Hyper uber-judgmental unfair atheists" to be more accurate. The problem is you need to make sure that the beam is out of your eye first before you judge so you can see clearly, (Matthew 7:3) that is why it's OK for Christians to Judge Atheists.

And to be perfectly open, here is part of my response on my blog to Froggie:

Froggie said: "This is totally [irresponsible] and life threatening.

A perfectly healthy person might get away with that some, but you could kill your wife with this irrational stuff."

So I said: I appreciate your concern but we are watching very closely.

Please don't think for one moment we are not watching carefully and monitoring and listening to our body's, otherwise you might be the one that is irrational. Remember we made promises to God to go 40 days and fell short by 4 days to call it off to err to caution. If we were "irresponsible" or "irrational" we would of done the full 40 no matter what. We broke our word with God for her safety.

In an attempt to ease your mind, if that is even possible, we are monitoring with, so far, more then 10 MRI's of her brain and have the very best doctor and team in the entire United States to help 24/7. We are no dummies and/or fools here.

Hopefully your lack of confidence and your prejudice has been thwarted. You were completely wrong and irrational yourself.

Proverbs 28:5 "Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed."

Now are we as radical and criminal as Froggie eluded/accused us to be? If not, what other things can he be wrong about also?

If yes, fine I can live with that, because if the ones that agree with Froggie are the ones that don't believe in God either then the Bible predicted accurately that I would be hated and persecuted by such people and another reason to trust God. Thanks for strengthing my faith.

Knowledge verses Wisdom

At least Stan I can say you are consistent in your responses.

When I said "The same kind of thinking that has corrupted and now bankrupted our economy."

My thoughts were on Barney Frank, another Democrat void of any morals and has the exact characteristics as Calvin holds in the strip. The Cheerleader behind Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac who shot down any regulations and even the soulless Greenspan who was the cheerleader that loved adjustable rates and yet has a 30 year fixed himself. I am sick of all of them, yes even Bush!

And don't get me started on the biggest lair of all of them, McCain, who was so against all these Pork ear marks so much he made a campaign slogan about them.

Then before you can even blink McCain rallies the troops to do that exact thing to the tune of 150 billion more 'sweetener' just to get the 700 bailout passed. Are you kidding me? He just lost the election with that one vote and it doesn't matter how much Sarah Palin is liked.

BTW did you see John Stewart compare McCain to Gallum the other day? Hilarious!

Both Obama and McCain voted for that 700b Bill filled with Pork. This is truly the saddest point humans can be in with all this perceived knowledge, no one is smart enough to have common sense and the simple wisdom of God. Chris Hedges was right when he said "there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere."

Go read Proverbs everyone, please! Then go get saved. Time is running out.

October 3, 2008

Out of body

My Mom had a couple of strokes in her life due to complications with Lupus. I remember when she was going through the horribly painful chemotherapy also. I came across this presentation by a woman who is a Brain specialist scientist and was able to articulate what she was going through. Her operation was very similar to what my Mom had. I found it fascinating how she experienced an out of body situation. The story seems similar to people that claimed to go to Heaven and back. My Mom described something similar, like a dream state when she couldn't talk. Does this debunk atheists? No, but I still found it interesting that a scientist found something spiritually enlightening through her right brain. There might be something substantial to explore more.

Maybe, people that seek God are just more right brained then most atheists. Maybe God reveals the right brain to us as we seek Him. These questions I cannot answer myself but I look forward to the discoveries that comes to us in our never ending search to find the truth. When we find the truth we will find God. One question that always comes to mind is, why? Some believe we evolved to this point, so the question is why? Why are we designed like this with two brain hemispheres? Are our brains are simply designed to experience God?

October 2, 2008

October 1, 2008

40 Day Fast

Well I was able to get another HD and install XP again. I just didn't have the energy to troubleshoot my computer so I waited until now.

Patty and I just stopped four days short of a 40 day fast and it was quite enlightening. Matthew 17:21 was clear. I will not sugar coat it, because it was one of the hardest things I have ever gone through. We wanted to do a 40 Day fast just after our 40th birthday, in prayer, to stop the spread of my wife's tumor that she had before. It's technical name is a 'rathke's cleft cyst' and she went through three brain surgeries to get rid of it a couple of years back. We happened to be led here to California by God, we feel, to be near the best doctor for the job who is a pioneer in the U.S. He has a top notch team and I am so very grateful for his knowledge and expertize in his field. Dr. Kelly took such good care of Patty, we just knew we were led by God to him.

As mysterious as the tumors were to us, the symptoms returned again recently. We feared it was coming back right after our 4th child, she was getting pretty shook up about it. This time we decided to do a 40 day fast and keep in prayer to stop the growth and hope for a miracle from God.

Well, it appears we got our wish and the tumor disappeared with no more signs during the fast (headaches, blurred vision, sinus troubles ...) so we feel our prayers have been answered. We were attacked by the devil in many other areas of our lives and we came through it quite humbled. Our bodies even started to reject water on day 34 and we were vomiting green bile the last two days. I felt like that exorcist girl towards the end and that is what prompted the early stopping point. We listened to our bodies and stopped when it was time.

Both our bodies were getting too stressed to handle our work load we had, so on day 36 we had the Lord's supper as our first meal and began the reintroduction of food again. The food tasted so very good those next days. We stayed as close to God as possible (eating raw fruits and vegetables) and we feel 100% again.

I suggest to all people that are questioning their faith or validity of God, and wants to know the truth of God, to "deny thy self" for 40 days with nothing but water and to focus on God for those days to allow Him to manifest Himself to you. Stay in His Word for those days. God has showed me everything I need to believe/trust in Him and I wish that would be the same case for all of you, if you give it the effort to understand Him. I can't begin to tell you the benefits of a long fast. Our bodies feel rejuvenated and toxin free. My spirit is calm and peaceful and ready for the challenges that life has for us. We should all strive to do a 40 day fast on our 40th birth day to reboot our systems both physically and spiritually.