Why I chose to leave karate after accepting the Lord

In the past, these reasons have helped clarify the issues for others. I thought it would be good to do so in a wider forum:

  1. The difference between Christian meditation and Eastern meditation is that Christian meditation is about "filling our minds with the things of God" and "whatever is lovely, good, pure, think on these things". But Eastern meditation is about emptying our minds, relaxing them, and opening them up to "ideas dropping into them like ripples in a pond." I believe this leaves a person open and vulnerable to demonic suggestion, and over time to possession. Please note, I am not saying that everything Eastern is wrong. Christianity came from the East!
  2. In my particular style of karate there is a "kata" (precise pattern of movements) called "gek sai dai". This translates to "breaking down a small fortress." The philosophy behind this, and most forms of martial art is that whatever obstacle I come against, if I break it down into small enough components, then I can overcome anything. This sounds good on the outside, but from a Christian perspective, I know that I am a finite human being. I am not invincible nor infinite. When I am confronted by an obstacle larger than myself, if I do not acknowledge my source of strength as coming from God, then I will seek some form of "inner strength" that will come from somewhere else. Again, I believe I would find this strength from a demonic source.
  3. Finally, no matter how careful you are, the main purpose of karate (to learn self-defence) can only be tested by fighting somebody else. This will eventually lead to damage to "the temple of God." This is not good. Please note, that I am not saying that the violence aspect is wrong per se, else we couldn’t have Christian rugby players!  (Nor did John the Baptist tell the soldiers to stop being soldiers — just to be content with their pay.)  It’s just that when I was practising karate, every person I would meet on the street would instantly be sized up and their weak points considered for attack.  My mind-set was not one of peace, but of war.

Caning not the real abuse

Did you see Joe Bennett’s opinion piece in yesterdays (Wednesday 30 Aug 2006) Dom Post?  I don’t normally find myself agreeing with Joe, but he hit the nail on the head.  Click here to see his article.  In summary, Sue Bradford seems to believe "kids are little balls of innocence who would grow into loving angels if only we adults didn’t warp them."  Whereas, I believe:
  • We all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
  • God disciplines those He loves
  • Nobody likes discipline at the time, but it is necessary for character building, and improvement of behaviour.

Why Mutation Is Not Evolution

The argument used by Evolutionists:

Mutations due to the rearrangement of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) expressed in light and dark moths in England, proves evolution.

The actual facts:

There are two colour phases of the same moth. Because of the smog in England, the trees have darkened and the camouflage that once protected the light moths from birds now protects the dark ones. The moths haven’t changed, just the ratio of their population. (Scientific American, vol. 200, March 1959, Dr. H.B.D. Kettlewell.)

The Changing Face of Evolution

The Changing Face of Human Evolution

(from an article published by Koinonia House)

We are told that science is always changing.  New information comes on the scene, and scientists work to figure out how that information fits in – or doesn’t – to current theories and explanations.  No field of science, however, appears to evolve as constantly as that of paleoanthropology – the study of ancient man and the apes that allegedly contributed to man’s evolution.  Most recently, a very interesting and ‘old’ skull was discovered in the African country of Chad, and has successfully turned the entire past 70 years of study of human evolution on its head.

The skull of this widely publicized new find, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, nicknamed Toumaï, has caused considerable ripples in the scientific community for a number of reasons;

  • Based on the relative age of the fossil record in which Toumaï was discovered, he has been dated at about 6-7 million years of age, several million years older than other ape skulls that have been considered as human ancestors.  This would be the time, according to current evolutionary theory, when we might find an ancestor that was not too far separated from the chimpanzees.
  • While his brain case is about the size of a chimpanzee, and while he looks like a chimp from the back, his face is flatter and his canine teeth are smaller – which are considered hominid traits.  At the same time, he has huge, gorilla-like brow ridges.  This is a strange mixture of  ‘primitive’ and ‘advanced’ characteristics.
  • Toumaï was found in the rough desert of Chad in central Africa, nearly a thousand miles west of the Rift Valley that has produced most of the ape skeletons that have been considered human ancestors.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is indeed a remarkable find for the paleoanthropologists, but for an odd reason; he tells the scientists that human evolution is not as neat and tidy as they had assumed forty years ago. "A find like this does make us question the trees people have built up of human evolution," said Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum, London.  Toumaï has been given an age at least 3 million years older than popular human-ape links like the australopithecines such as Lucy.  However, some of Toumaï’s facial characteristics are more advanced than Lucy’s. If a younger skull looks more ape-like than an older skull, that causes problems in considering the younger fossil a possible human ancestor.  Toumaï is forcing the scientists to reconsider simplistic explanations concerning human evolution.

Anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University in Washington DC noted, "When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder."    In the old models, apes evolved neatly, step by step, into humans.  However, now he sees human evolution looking more like a bush – a bush with many dead ends.  While scientists have seen "human-like" characteristics in a number of ape fossils, they are now having to debate if and how those individual apes even relate to each other.  It becomes a game of mixing and matching.  According to Wood, the lesson to learn is that evolutionary relationships cannot be based on appearances alone.

In fact, it can be difficult to determine specifics about a creature based on pieces of a skeleton. Scientists have made the following uncertain descriptions regarding this newly discovered skull.

  • Toumaï is likely a male, because of his heavy brow ridges, but he could also have been a female.
  • Toumaï could be a direct ancestor, or could be from a side branch.
  • The place where his spine enters his head does not prove he walked upright, but allows that he could have.
  • He could be a hominid ancestor or a chimp ancestor… Or neither.
  • "I’m willing to bet some money that this is a hominid." – Daniel Lieberman Harvard University

Regarding the true nature of Toumaï, Wood says, "My guess is that it’s neither a chimp nor a human ancestor – it’s a creature that was living at the same time."

The difficulty with all these speculations regarding human evolution is that these paleoanthropologists begin with the a priori belief that humans did indeed evolve from apes.  From there, the scientists try to work every new skull into the belief system they already hold.  If, like Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the skull doesn’t fit into the normal mold, they are willing to change their views on how human evolution happened.  However, few ever ask the question, "Did humans evolve from apes at all?"

In spite of the growing confusion regarding human evolution, scientists are confident that further fossil discoveries will fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle.  We will not be surprised, however, if the puzzle continues to grow more disjointed and creates even more questions than it answers.  After all, science is always changing, but the Word of the Lord endures forever (1Peter 1:25).  

Related Links:

Brought over some stuff from old website

We used to have a Hippolite website, when I had Mana Information Systems Limited.  On that web site, I had a list of Conferences I had attended.  I thought it would be good to copy that list to here, since I no longer have the old website.  However, when I did that, I realised that the list referenced three other pages from my old web site.  So I had to reproduce them here.  They are a bit longer than your typical blog, so please make allowances.  Also, they refer to events that are not current, but still relevant, I feel.

Evidence for Young Earth

Arguments Against the Accuracy of Rock Dating

  1. Using the potassium-argon method of dating, volcanic material in Hawaii that was less than 200 years old, tested at between 160 million and 3 billion years old. (Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968, pg. 4601.)
  2. A shell from a living mollusk was tested for carbon-14 and found to be dead for 3,000 years. (Science, vol. 141, page 636, August 16, 1963.)

Arguments For a Young Earth

  1. Dr. Melvin Cook said that if oil in the earth was as old as geologists claim (80,000,000 years) it’s pressure would have dissipated long before this – the present pressure of oil indicates not over 10,000 years. (Chapters 12-13 of Prehistory and Earth Models by Melvin A. Cook, Max Parrish and Company, 1966.)
  2. Scientists, working in a lab, produced a barrel of oil from one ton of garbage in only 20 minutes. (Machine Design, 14 May 1970.)

Corporal Punishment in Christian Schools

I am gob-smacked.  I watched the 6pm news last night (a rare occurance for various reasons) and there were three articles that would have struck me as a funny coincidence, if they weren’t happening in my own country:
  1. The central government (spear-headed by Sue Bradford) want to outlaw any corporal punishment in "fundamentalist christian" schools.
  2. Teachers are complaining about increased danger to themselves in classroom.
  3. The Ministry of Education are "clarifying" a "guideline" that outlaws prayer in schools.

My thoughts:

  1. Duh!  If the teachers cannot punish effectively, they cannot maintain discipline and therefore teach.
  2. My understanding of the method the schools use is to call in the parents to administer the punishment.  Sue Bradford has a Private Members Bill before Parliament at the moment to take away that parental right.  This is another attempt to remove it.
  3. Central government has a role to perform.  The production of "public good" works, such as street lighting, is an example.  Their role is not to impinge on the government of the family.  They should stay out of the home.  Let me elaborate.  There are many forms of government:
    1. Family
    2. Church, Social Club, Sports Bodies
    3. Local government
    4. Central government
  4. Each of the above forms of government have legitimate purpose, but the Central government’s incursion into the home is an illegitimate use of power.
  5. Central government has removed God from secular education.  There is any increase of violence being perpetrated by the students.  A causal link?  I think so!  The removal of moral restraint leads all people (adults, children) to increase of immorality.
  6. The separation of Church and State is a fine ideal when it’s applied both ways: Government should not tell Christian Schools how best to educate their own children.
  7. Finally, who says prayer is not allowed in schools?  Schools were founded by Christians!  This guideline is an attempt at rule by steath: nobody has voted to ban prayer.  This action is an attempt by a goverenment department to implement a law that was never debated in Parliament.  It is wrong.  It should be resisted and challenged.
  8. Alternatively, Homeschooling is about the only option left to raise children free from this government’s socialist (godless) agenda.

Setting the record straight.