Saturday, March 27, 2010


Mary and I enjoy good live music shows of every genre. We've seen in person, John Fogerty, formerly lead singer with Creedence Clearwater Revival, [Popularly known as CCR] in Austin Texas, [Along with five thousand others mostly above fifty years of age.] Merle Haggard, Wanda Jackson and a ton more in live concert through the years.

Last night we drove to Weatherford Texas with friends to catch John Sharp and the Generations singing group do a live Fifties music show at the Texas Opry theatre in Weatherford.

John is an old friend and a deacon at the church I pastored years ago in Ft Worth. [Still is a deacon there I think.] John's son, John Rian, sings in the group as well. John is like me and married far above himself when he married Elaine, but that's another issue and post altogether. He and Elaine have another son..David. both boys are suppose to still be little kids instead of grown men as they really are now.

As Ed Sullivan used to say as stated in the title of this post, this show was that. I knew they were good but not THIS good. John and the Generations, along with a hugh cast of singers and band members, put on the BEST show we've ever seen. [And as I've said we've seen a few.] It was outstanding. I'm putting it up on post because I like to share with you the good things and the people I know and this is the best of both.

They sing regularly at the Johnny High show in Arlington Texas to which we've never been, but we're going now I assure you. I understand it's every Saturday night and they alternate between fifties, Classical rock, country, gospel, and other genres on a regular basis devoting a night to each. Checking the calendar of shows will undoubtedly tell you which is when I'm sure in case you do or do not like a particular genre.
[I like em all.] They also do a "Rhythms of the Road" venue which can be checked on the internet. It's worth a look as well.

I've put up a few videos to whet you musical appetite and I do encourage you to listen through all three if you have time. The first two are song length [31/2 minutes or so] but the third is only about 40 seconds. All are worth it if you love a good time in every legitimate venue as do we.

I don't know what category this post will archive in but I guess it'll have to be a "because I want to" category that I'll now have to establish . ;) Enjoy.

Paul B.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010


Just for fun..would you give us your first memory of the one sitting in this chair? By the way, this HAS to be one of my all time favorite pictures.

Paul B.


Because of the interest I'm going to post two books on Billy Graham that have been recommended in the comment section as a good read. Enjoy.

"The Preacher And The Presidents"

[Billy Graham in the White House]

Authors..Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy

"A Prophet With Honor"

Author..William Martin

Sunday, March 21, 2010


As promised here is what I suppose is a "self portrait" of the author whose comment I used a couple of posts ago. It was the picture on his blog. I'm assuming he walked a mile for that camel. :)

Sketch by James Holston

I love it....

Thursday, March 18, 2010


I've got nothing to say at the moment. But reading this was enjoyable for me this morning. I'll share it with any who read.


It costs nothing, but creates much good.

It enriches those who receive it without impoverishing those who give it away.

It happens in a flash but the memory of it can last forever.

No one is so rich that he can get along without it.

No one is too poor to feel rich when receiving it.

It creates happiness in the home, fosters good will in business, and is the countersign of friends.

It is rest to the weary, daylight to the discouraged, sunshine to the sad, and natures best antidote for trouble.

Yet it cannot be bought, begged, borrowed, or stolen for it is something of no earthly good to anybody until it is given away willingly.


And one needs a smile as much as the one who has none to give! Author Unknown

Paul B.

Sunday, March 14, 2010


The past five posts have presented the arguments of Atheists that prove [to them] that Christians are, by logic, ignorant and unquestioning. Some very good responses have come in the comment section as a result.

I have a portion [only a small portion thus used without permission] of a Q@A time between a skeptic and a philosopher who is a Christian that underscores the thought that all operate on a system based on faith. It's like Woody Allen said "There is no evidence that God doesn't just have to take it on faith."

I thought you would enjoy reading a philosopher's approach who is also a fair to middlin theologian. I'll post his picture next time. I'm not assuming you will agree with the Philosopher on every point. [As somone said in a comment, you get two Baptists in the same room you have three opinions on every issue.] But I thought you would enjoy giving him a hearing. He's, as I said, fair to middlin. [Which in Oklahoma is "quite good."]

The Skeptic asks how I KNOW that Jesus was God and not just a really amazing human being. 'You can't know that can you? You have to just believe it. Objectively, it's kind of preposterous.'

My response:

"You've asked the gazillion-dollar question. And this is where it often gets uncomfortable for the skeptic. [Or, in our case, the Atheist.] You're right about having "to just believe it," although I am loath to minimize it by using the word "just." Believing is not easy. While the Bible affirms that belief (the same word as "faith" in the original Greek language) is a gift from God, the Bible also says that those who have not been given the gift of faith are nonetheless without excuse concerning God's existence and the deity of Jesus.

Here's why:

When we as human beings assess the things we know -- and it is a inevitiable human thing to do -- the more thoughtful and astute among us will wonder, "How do I know what I know?" This question, strangely enough, ought to lead each and every human being to the conclusion that God exists, that Christ is God, and that we are all accountable to him. I realize that's quite a claim, and here's the basis of that claim:

The ultimate epistemological [theory of knowledge] question asks for a foundation -- a solid ground -- on which to base all of one's reasoning, inference, thinking and knowledge. This is why Archimedes said, "Give me a ledge on which to stand and I will move the earth," or something like that. He recognized a deficit in his reasoning, namely, that he needed to justify his method of knowing. David Hume, one of my favorite philosophers, wrote eloquently about this. In a nutshell, he acknowledged that there exist no objective grounds on which to trust logical inference, to use induction or to expect uniformity in one's experience.

Epistemologically speaking, the true skeptic should not trust chairs. Every time he attempts to sit in a chair, the true skeptic, if he is consistent with his espoused thesis, must check the chair to see if it will hold his weight this time. It should not matter that the chair held his weight just 5 minutes ago.

Surrealist artist Salvador Dali seemed to pay homage to this conundrum with his Lobster-Telephone sculpture. The quote that accompanies the sculpture at the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg, Fla. says: "I never understand why, when I ask for a grilled lobster, I am never served a cooked telephone."

What's the point of all that? It's this: ALL knowledge and reason is based on belief/faith. How does one know one can trust logic and reason? Do you have to just believe it? One cannot prove the verity of logic and reason. To say, "It just works" is to beg the very question, to commit a violation of logic itself.

Some say that the only way to ascertain reality and truth is by the scientific method. The problem is glaring: By what method does one establish the verity of the scientific method? The statement is self-refuting. Rather than face this problem, all the skeptic scientists I've debated on this matter are forced to the conclusion (although most refuse to admit it): You have to just believe it.

This was unacceptable to Hume, and for good reason (no pun intended). If someone is committed to sound logic, that very logic demands that logic itself must be logically grounded. But it is utterly impossible to do so without question-begging (that is, to commit a logical fallacy).

It is important to recognize that objectivity is not the believer's problem, but the skeptic's. You used the word "objectively" when you wrote: "Objectively, it's kind of preposterous."

I agree with you, IF we assume a godless and purposeless universe. Hume assumed there was no god and no purpose in the universe, and it led him to irrationality, concluding that there is no ground for logic or reason. One can only go on blind faith.

Archimedes realized that there had to be an ultimate foundation, and without God, there is no "ledge." Without God, there is only blind faith. The existence of God gives us the only rational grounding for logic, a basis for trusting in mathematics and science, a foundation for expecting uniformity in nature, a bedrock to undergird the inductive principle and modus ponens.

So yes, for the skeptic, you just have to believe it -- BLINDLY. For the believer, it isn't blind faith. It is rather a wide-eyed, perspicuous faith. Everything, all knowledge without exception, is based on faith. The difference is: Some have an unjustified blind faith (the skeptic) and some have a justified grounded faith (the believer).

Those who recognize this deficit in their epistemology ought to conclude that God must therefore exist. Otherwise, nothing makes sense. Thus, the proof of God's existence and the deity of Christ is the impossibility of the contrary. It is a transcendental argument, primarily because that which grounds our very thinking must transcend our thinking. And that ought to lead us to the existence of God and the deity of Christ."

Paul B.

Saturday, March 13, 2010


Well we've come to the final two of the "top ten" list. I realize the answers or thoughts we've given here, were they to have even been read by Atheists which I kinda doubt, would be insufficient to persuade them differently. But, you know, I'm not doing this to persuade anyone about anything really. I'm doing this for a number of reasons from my own perspective...
a) Because it's fun.
b) Because I wanted to.
c) Because I like to hear what other people think about things.
d) Because Atheists are worth listening to.
e) Because it has a way of showing us stuff about ourselves.
d) Because we all might learn something.
e) Because God might show up in little ways.
f) Because it's fun..[I said that didn't I.]

So now the final two signs. Remember our verse. Thanks for participating. Keep being Berean type believers. What do you think?

Top Ten Signs That You Are An Ignorant, Unquestioning Christian:


You feel insulted and ‘dehumanized’ when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.


You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

Paul B.

Thursday, March 11, 2010


If you're wondering what this is all about..check out the introduction to the last post just below this one. Remember our verse about our communication. Have at it..with respect.



Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and animals.


You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity God.

What say you?

Paul B.

Monday, March 08, 2010


I recently saw some good thoughts in the "top ten list" that shows a person may be an ignorant and unquestioning Christian put together by some atheists and I have been having an enjoyable time looking at how they really do view believers. My purpose is to give them a hearing and see how we might answer their particular opinion. [At least some answers to the top ten evidences in their mind of our ignorance.]

So far the comments have been very good and, while probably not satisfactory to the group who composed the top ten list, have satisfied my desire to stir respectful conversation with those willing to do so.

I will continue today with "part three" and request the respectful replies continue on the part of anyone who comments. Ephesians 4:29 is our guiding verse and it says.. "Watch the way you talk. Let nothing foul or dirty come out of your mouth. Say only what helps, each word a gift." Thanks in advance for that.



You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by prehistoric tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.


You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

As someone on TV says..What say you?

Paul B.

Thursday, March 04, 2010


Continuing...[Why? Check the last post.]

8. While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

7. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs - though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend eternity in an infinite hell of suffering. Yet, you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

Remember our guidelines for comments. [Check last post again..]

Paul B.

Monday, March 01, 2010


Ever heard.."You may be a red-neck if....?

I recently found what was called the "Top ten signs you may be an ignorant, unquestioning Christian" according to a post on an Atheist blog. I have to say I saw some good thoughts in the "top ten list" and decided to test our ability as Christians to answer each with some thought and scripture if there are, in fact, answers to be given.

I'm smart enough to know this could be a stupid thing to do knowing human nature as I do and knowing the propensity for SOME Christians to make a fool of themselves with anger and disrespectfulness. Some one said.."The prayer of a wise Atheist is..God save me from your followers, please!!"

I have to also admit that anger and disrespect are not reserved for believers ONLY but can be found in some unbelievers as well. So I'm requiring that we all [believers and any unbelievers that might comment] abide by the wisdom of Ephesians 4:29.. "Watch the way you talk. Let nothing foul or dirty come out of your mouth. Say only what helps, each word a gift." [That is our guideline..whether you believe Ephesians to be inspired or not.]

Someone may ask.."Who decides whether something is "foul" or "dirty" or what "helps" in a comment?

The answer is___I do. And my decision [as administrator of this blog] is final.

Someone may also say "that isn't fair."

My answer is.. You can tell I define "fairness" as well.

I probably didn't need to put up those last few statements, but I DO believe ground rules established ahead of time openly and honestly will make for a better comment section on this kind of post. It could be fun and informative. It could be disasterous. We'll see which.

[I may be way off base here anyway with my blog being read by only a half a dozen people.. :) ]

Remember..if you have a response in answer to the charge or a response to a comment that's made, that's what the comment section is for.

[THINK EPHESIANS 4:29]---------------------------------



You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourselves a Christian.

Your answer or comment is.....?

Paul B.

UPDATE:: :It has occured to me how long it might take for us to take all ten separately so I have added number 9 and we'll take them two per post until the last one. So add to this discussion...



You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers THEN consider that to be evidence that prayer works and you think that the remaining 99.99% failure was simply the will of God.

Your answer or comment is.....?

[Those commenting on # 10 feel free to weigh in on this one anew.]