If London hammer has an archaeological bearing in terms of consensus then it would be a dissoluble agent or refutation to the infamously acclaimed evolution. Here is the issue:

As you can see, the London hammer if its concept as a pre-flood artifact is true dated to be 400million years old negates the evolution concept of Human ancestors to have lived from 8-6 million years ago. The london hammer implies a human civilization predating its so-called and assumed human ancestors thus nullifying any thread of evolution reality. The problem is, the london hammer seem to be an archaelogical dispute as some reported:

The London Hammer is well known to those who follow the debates and discussions around OOParts. You may recall that I blogged about OOParts last year. In that piece, I mentioned a good site to explore for bad archeology claims, named, of course, Bad Archaeology. They had a short write up on the London Hammer saying:

One of the major problems with this object is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the nodule was ever part of the Red Creek’s geology, which is the Lower Cretaceous Hensel Sand Formation. These deposits are thought to be roughly 110-115 million years old. Having acquired the object in the early 1980s, Baugh promoted it as a ‘pre-Noachian’ artefact (in other words, dating from a time before the mythical Flood of Noah). However, it was soon pointed out by a geologist that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object, making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. In fact, the style of the hammer would lead us to recognise it as nineteenth-century in date and of definitely American provenance.

Carl Baugh is the current owner of the London Hammer. He is the director of the Creation Evidence Museum of Texas. The museum features the London Hammer (London Artifact, as they call it) as one of their displays of evidence for creation.

A good scientific discussion of the London Hammer comes from Glen Kuban on his Paluxy site. Give the piece a read, he does a good job breaking the claims down. He concludes:

As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer’s artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.

I couldn’t have said it better. Another interesting read on this artifact comes from J. R. Cole from the National Center for Science Education. He writes:

The stone concretion is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble.

The confounding factor in all this, of course, is that Baugh will not release the artifact for independent testing. He has had it tested, it is claimed, but not in a transparent way.

The best conclusion I can draw from this is that the artifact probably isn’t an out of place artifact.

Be well.

About Mike Weaver

Husband, father, skeptic, technologist, motorcyclist, hunter, outdoors-man, and evil genius. I am formally trained in computer science, physics, mathematics, and emergency medicine (paramedic, former).

View all posts by Mike Weaver 

Mike Weaver, apparently an intellectual in his field, has injected a doubt to the archaeological dating of the London hammer to have it pre-supposed as discreetly done and not done in a formal transparent way. I’m a poor researcher wanting clarity on this matter as too, I’m biblically inclined believer but wanting sufficient proof for my belief. I’m obviously anti-evolution in that aspect of human evolution as proposed by atheists thus expectedly, i have high hopes for the london hammer as a real piece of evidence. But having doubts, i want to challenge a verifiable response from Mike Weaver who sowed the doubt how his inadequate words “not in a transparent way” been a valid reality. 
Mike, would you answer please? In addition, is there no consensus from the archaeological field regarding london hammer as originally proposed?


Some religious groups condemn homosexuality. They consider it a god-condemned status wherein the need for homosexuals to reform to be straight men and female is necessary. Though establishing the true nature of homosexuality is yet scientifically vague in the past yet there are studies now leaning in favor of homosexuality as rather natural than not. Here is a study:

Researchers using brain scans have found new evidence that biology—and not environment—is at the core of sexual orientation. Scientists at the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that gay men and straight women share similar traits—most notably in the size of their brains and the activity of the amygdala—an area of the brain tied to emotion, anxiety and aggression. The same is true for heterosexual men and lesbians.

Study author, neurologist Ivanka Savic–Berglund, says such characteristics would develop in the womb or in early infancy, meaning that psychological or environmental factors played little or no role.

This is yet another in a long series of observations showing there’s a biological reason for sexual orientation,” says Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who was not involved in the study. “It’s not just a reflection of people’s behavior, nor is it a choice, nor is it something in their rearing environment. [The study] shows that it’s something that people are born with.”

Previous studies have examined brain differences between gay and straight people on the basis of their responses to various tasks, such as rating the attractiveness of other people. The problem was that there was no way to determine whether their responses were colored by learned social cues.

To get around this, Savic-Berglund focused on the structure and function of brain regions that develop during fetal development or early infancy—without using any cognitive tasks or rating systems.

The researchers used MRIs to determine the volume and shapes of the brains of 90 volunteers—25 straight and 20 gay members of each sex. They found that the straight men and gay women had asymmetrical brains; that is, the cerebrum (the largest part of the brain, which is responsible for thought, sensory processing, movement and planning) was larger on the right hemisphere of the brain than on the left. In contrast, they found that women and gay men had symmetrical cerebrums.

The team next used PET (positron emission tomography) scans to measure the blood flow to the amygdala, that part of the brain controlling emotion, fear and aggression. The images showed how the amygdala connects to other parts of the brain, giving them clues as to how this might influence behavior. They scanned subjects’ brains when they at rest and did not show them photos or introduce other behavior that might have been learned.

They found that in gay men and women, the blood flowed to areas involved in fear and anxiety, whereas in straight men and lesbians it tended to flow to pockets linked to aggression. 

Robert Epstein, emeritus director of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Concord, Mass., agrees that the study offers compelling evidence that sexual orientation is a biologically fixed characteristic. But he cautions that these findings may vary in different people whose sexual orientation is not that clear-cut, which his own research shows includes a majority of the population.”

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-says-brains-of-gay/

Current evidence indicates that sexual differentiation of the human brain occurs during fetal and neonatal development and programs our gender identity—our feeling of being male or female and our sexual orientation as hetero-, homo-, or bisexual. This sexual differentiation process is accompanied by many structural and functional brain differences among these groups (1). In previous studies (23), the Savic laboratory detected a sex-differentiated activation of the anterior hypothalamus in heterosexual men (HeM) and heterosexual women (HeW) and a sex-atypical, almost reversed, pattern of activation in homosexual men (HoM) and homosexual women (HoW). The hypothalamus (Fig. 1) is a small brain area located under the anterior commissure that is involved in many different functions, including reproduction. These observations raised several questions, one of which was whether the sexual dimorphisms described could be sex-atypical in homosexual subjects even with respect to factors not directly associated with reproduction. In a recent issue of PNAS, Savic and Lindström (4) reported that hemispheric ratios, as well as patterns of amygdala connectivity, were sex-atypical in homosexual individuals, with HoM exhibiting more female patterns than HeM and HoW showing more male-like features than HeW. Whether the observed sex-atypical characteristics are the result of processes that occur during the fetal or neonatal periods, as is the case with gender identity and sexual orientation, is an open question. The excellent imaging research of Ivanka Savic’s group in past years has provided strong evidence for structural and functional brain differences related to gender and sexual orientation. The study of these differences has emerged from an era of prejudice and fear such as I experienced 20 years ago (5).In 1990, we described the first brain difference related to sexual orientation in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN)—the brain’s “clock”—which in HoM is twice the size that it is in HeM (6). We later induced a similar brain difference in rats by pharmacologically disturbing the interaction between testosterone and the developing brain, using the aromatase inhibitor ATD in the neonatal period (7). This experiment yielded bisexual adult rats that had a larger-than-normal number of vasopressin neurons and total cells in their SCNs. The difference in the SCN of HoM was, therefore, not caused by a difference in sexual behavior, as was suggested at the time, but by an atypical interaction between sex hormones and the developing brain. In 1991, LeVay (8) reported that HoM, like HeW, have a smaller area in the frontal part of the hypothalamus (the INAH-3) than do HeM. In 1992, Allen and Gorski (9) found that the anterior commissure (Fig. 1) of HoM is larger than that of HeM. This structure, which is larger in women than in men, connects the left and right temporal cortexes and is thus involved in sex differences related to cognitive abilities and language. This difference may be related to the sex-atypical hemispheric asymmetries in HoM and HoW as seen by Savic and Lindström (4). The first functional scanning paper by Kinnunen et al. (10), which described differences in the hypothalamus in relation to sexual orientation, received little scientific or public attention, although the results may have had clinical relevance. The hypothalamus of HoM, it turned out, was not as responsive to a classic antidepressant (fluoxetine) as that of HeM, which points to a difference in the activity of the serotonergic system. Subsequently, Savic et al. (2) studied the effect of scent—in particular, a pheromone derived from progesterone and excreted in perspiration in concentrations 10 times higher in men than in women. Although pheromones influence sexual behavior and stimulate activation in the hypothalamus of HeW and HoM in the same way, this pheromone did not elicit a response in the hypothalamus of HeM. Pheromones thus may play a part in our behavior related to sexual orientation. A follow-up study (3) showed that HoW reacted in a sex-atypical, almost reciprocal, way to pheromones as compared with HeW, again indicating that some hypothalamic circuits function in relation to sexual orientation. Kranz and Ishai (11) expanded this observation to cortical areas. Functional MRI was used to measure activity changes in the brain when pictures of men and women were shown to subjects. Viewing a female face produced a strong reaction in the thalamus and medial prefrontal cortex of HeM and HoW, whereas in HoM and HeW these structures reacted more strongly to the face of a man.

Savic’s previous studies raised the question of whether certain sexually dimorphic features in the brain that are unlikely to be directly involved in reproduction may differ between homosexual and heterosexual individuals. The article by Savic and Lindström (4) provides the answer. The authors measured hemispheric asymmetry with MRI volumetry and functional connectivity of the amygdala with PET scans of cerebral blood flow. In HeM and HoW, volumetric measurements showed a rightward cerebral asymmetry, whereas the volumes of the cerebral hemispheres were symmetrical in HoM and HeW. Moreover, homosexual subjects also showed sex-atypical amygdala connections. In HoM, as in HeW, the connections were more widespread from the left amygdala. In HoW and HeM, on the other hand, they were more widespread from the right amygdala. Furthermore, in HoM and HeW the connections were primarily displayed with the contralateral amygdala and the anterior cingulate; in HeM and HoW, they were displayed with the caudate, putamen, and prefrontal cortex. Savic and Lindström describe sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects that cannot be primarily linked to reproduction and suggest a link between sexual orientation and neurobiological entities. Further research is needed on the putative influence of testosterone on the same parameters (e.g., in individuals with complete androgen-insensitivity syndrome). Neurobiological research related to sexual orientation in humans is only just gathering momentum, but the evidence already shows that humans have a vast array of brain differences, not only in relation to gender, but also in relation to sexual orientation.”

Source: http://m.pnas.org/content/105/30/10273.full

As you can see through this related articles concerning the study on sexual orientation, the study have compelling reasons to say, homosexuality has by itself a biological reason. Its reflected by the conclusion made by a biologist:

This is yet another in a long series of observations showing there’s a biological reason for sexual orientation,” says Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who was not involved in the study. “It’s not just a reflection of people’s behavior, nor is it a choice, nor is it something in their rearing environment. [The study] shows that it’s something that people are born with.”

Science attests to the biological nature of homosexuality. Biblically, nothing in it suggests the condemnation of homosexuals for merely being homosexuals. What God condemns are catamites or homosexuals doing homosexual affairs with the same sex as it say:

1 Cor 6:9-11

[9]Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor MALAKOS (CATAMITE) nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

[10]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

[11]And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

God cannot condemn something natural as homosexuality as he approves of nature or something natural as our teacher as it say:

1 Corinthians 11:14

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?



I heard Bro Eli said, the holy spirit is God. For me, I didn’t yet attain that level of understanding to say the holy spirit is God. I believe there is insufficient fact to confirm the holy spirit is god. Let me show you. Firstly, let me expound that the holy spirit is a person, a being that has a nature, will, mind and emotion.

Someone said:

“Biblical Proof That the Holy Spirit Is a Person

A real person has the attributes of personality, which include mind, will, and emotions. Does the Holy Spirit have a will? He distributes spiritual gifts to Christians “as He wills.”2 Does the Holy Spirit have a mind? He “searches . . . the deep things of God” and knows them.3 Does the Holy Spirit have emotions? We are told to “grieve not the Holy Spirit.”4 If the Holy Spirit can be grieved, then He has emotions. Because the Holy Spirit has a mind, a will, and emotions, we know that He is a Person.5

A real person also has the capacity to have relationships with others. That’s the primary reason we have mind, will, and emotions. According to Philippians 2:1, the Spirit is able to have fellowship with us.6 According to 2 Corinthians 13:14, the Holy Spirit can have communion with us.7 One who is able to commune and to have fellowship is capable of personal relationships. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a person.”

Indeed, the holy spirit is a person. Nothing in the bible introduced him as a created being. Nothing likewise confirm or deny that he is eternal. Therefore nothing is confirmatory regarding his existence in terms of origin. We don’t therefore know if he was created or not. The sure thing is, he was not once a part of God in nature as Jesus was the only person that came out from God–the only begotten son. Therefore, the holy spirit never came out from God. But is he God?

Someone said:

“The Holy Spirit Is God

The Holy Spirit is the all-knowing, all-seeing, everywhere-present God. Acts 5:3–4 teaches us that the Holy Spirit is God. Remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira? Before Ananias was struck dead, Peter told him, “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? . . . You have not lied to men; but to God.” From this event we can see that lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God; therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.

There is more Scriptural evidence that the Holy Spirit is God. We see from the Bible that:

  • The words of God are the words the Holy Spirit inspired.11
  • We are the temple of God because the Spirit indwells us.12
  • The one born of the Spirit is said to be born of God.13

The Holy Spirit is God Himself, the third Person of the divine Trinity. Why is it so important to believe in the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit? It is crucial because you cannot give Him the honor and respect that He deserves if you don’t consider Him a divine Person. In fact, I find it doubtful that someone can be saved while he denies the personhood and deity of the One who tries to draw him to salvation.14

As you can see, nothing in these logical analysis confirmed that the holy spirit is God. It said:

  •  “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? . . . You have not lied to men; but to God. 
  • We are the temple of God because the Spirit indwells us.12

As you can see, the holy spirit represents God as saying, we are the temple of God through the holy spirit indwelling in us. Being the representative of God, the credit of anything affixed to him is for God almighty so when it say, lying to the holy spirit is lying to God, doesn’t make the holy spirit God but only as his representative thus lying to his representative is tantamount to lying to god almighty so when it say, lying to the holy spirit is lying to God, God there is not the holy spirit but God almighty being represented by the holy spirit therefore nothing is confirmatory to say, holy spirit is God. Likewise it said:

  • The one born of the Spirit is said to be born of God.13

That is in the same essence of the holy spirit as representative of God. Born of the spirit is born of God almighty. Nothing is confirmed in that essence the article implied. 

Now, let me direct you to another apparently proof that the holy spirit is God. Let’s read:

Genesis 1:26-27

[26]And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[27]So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

As you can see, God has co-creators in creating man he claimed as someone in the same likeness and image with him. Jesus and the holy spirit are his co-creator but verse 27 implies that the credit of creation is for God almighty. The holy spirit is a co-creator as expressed:

Job 33:4

[4]The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Therefore, being a co-creator therefore he is the one said by God as:

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

Being his image and likeness, is he in the same nature and shape as Jesus and God are or only the same image and likeness in terms of righteousness/holiness only as image of god in biblical terms is holiness/righteousness? Nothing is again confirmed or denied regarding holy spirit as God thus it is inconclusive. Having these, the holy spirit could be God or not. The only problem is, there is no sufficient fact to prove he is indeed God.

What can you say, Bro Eli?


Dear Medical personalities,

I am Dennis Butic and with all sincerity, I don’t have any issue regarding any specific Medical practice/doctor but only with regards to my initial observation, fractional in terms of integral medical truth if so that there is a bigger reality than my observation. I had been a TB patient in the past. I underwent 6 month medication. Medicine intake was basically not a problem though the meds I took, though I cannot remember how it tasted, was probably has bitter under taste, but being adult, it posed no obstacle with the willing mind for recuperation. But that is, on my case, an adult but how about for a 4year old kid diagnosed with TB with regards to meds bitter taste?

Let me give some details. My pamangkin has recurring cough. Diagnosed with TB through blood examination. We didnt have a 2nd opinion from another doctor which my parents neglected. We should have as examination have discrepancies between different Medical apparatus as I experienced with x-ray.  Nevertheless, they prescribed 4 kinds of medicine. 2 syrup, 5ml each one hour before meal and one syrup and one tablet (to be pulverized and mixed with water) after meal. Initially, the intake went smoothly for 4days but afterwards, even with tactical coaxing, he only drank the 3syrup but resisted and consistently spit out the tablet due to its bitter taste, unpalatable for a kid his age. Without the mentality of recuperation, endurance and a willing mind, med intake is futile.

Here are the medicine:

  • One hour before meal are: ISONIAZID and RIFAMPICIN
  • After meal are: PYRAZINAMIDE and ETHAMBUTOL (bitter tablet)

Here is the prescription sheet:

As I said, I have no issue with the doctor. I posted the prescription for credibility. And as I said, this is just a fractional observation. If there is no other way to cure an infant’s TB, (which I don’t know if there are, I should have asked a doctor but couldn’t) whose fault is it if my pamangkin gets worse bec of med intake failure? The chemist who cannot make child-friendly tablets, the doctor who have no alternative child-friendly tablets/meds for prescription, or the medical world unsophisticated standard quality?

If there are alternative for cure such as a child-friendly replacement drug, I would say, the doctor lacks empathy and she was careless or she is an ignorant doctor. Nevertheless, if she knew there was an alternative child-friendly drug yet she chooses a hostile to the palate drug, which consequently bec of intake failure would make the condition worse, I would say, it is a medical malpractice or if not, then I’m an idiot!

The question is, Are there no alternative for the bitter pill?

The second question is, are the chemist idiots to make bitter pills for kids which are wasted bec of improbable intake?

Lastly, I wanted to reiterate, this article is due to fractional observation!

Sincerely Yours,



Many INC online ridicule our shabby, externally dilapidated houses of worship comparing it to untidy pigpens, having market places around and even motels while Eli Soriano has luxurious mansion in Brazil. I would address four issues, namely,

  • Our houses of worship are shabby and denigrated in like manner as pig pens while theirs is sophisticated, high cost kapilyas.
  • Market places/motels fluorish immediately around it.
  • Worshippers sleeping on worship area during worship services
  • The brazil mansion is anti-thesis to our shabby houses of worship

Firstly, our houses of worship are like pig pens. True in most cases, here is the photos they keep showing.

Biblically, God ordered us to congregate in worship services thus necessitates the need of houses of worship but never did God imposed for us to build houses of worship esp luxurious kapilyas though neither did he prohibitted building modest buildings. Therefore, any house of worship would do, rented or built but must not be in that essence of luxurious kapilya but modestly, as justice to poor members, whose efforts were through hard earned money, thus the need for justifiable modest houses of worship. MCGI follows the example of the early Christians who only suffice in modest even poor houses as practically, their houses of worship. 

Acts 2:44-47

[44]And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

[45]And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

[46]And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

[47]Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Their houses of worship were from house to house indicating ordinary houses of poor members. They have no much wealth to build houses of worship but even with wealth it is not an issue how a house of worship should look provided its practical and modest as God sanctioned for us to judge not according to appearance therefore appearance is a least concern for the church regarding houses of worship as it say:

John 7:24

[24]Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. 

Though it is a doctrine to have all things done in decency and order, it is not in matters of physical appearances as we are not to judge according to appearance so as specified in the verse above. Therefore it doesn’t matter if our houses of worship looks like pigpens. Judge not accdg to appearances?

INC argues that God ordered the building of kapilyas as they quoted:

Haggai 1:4,8

[4]Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?

[8]Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.

As you can see its about the temple of Solomon lied waste or destroyed, they have to rebuild. Its not about kapilyas. But they said, the built house of worship is forever implying kapilyas.

2 Chronicles 7:15-16

[15]Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place.

[16]For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

Though that house of worship built is forever, it doesn’t mean eternal as even kapilyas would be consumed at the end of time. The use of forever or perpetually implies the time span a thing exist as exemplified:

Jonah 2:6,10

[6]I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

[10]And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

Jonah was not eternally at the bottom of the sea but only 3days/night in it yet God declared it as forever therefore forever suggest the time span a thing or an event exists, thus when it said the temple of Solomon would be built and the name of God would be there forever, it implies the duration of the existence of the temple of Solomon that is until its destruction on 70 AD. That is not the kapilyas. 

Having that, INC has no support for building luxurious kapilya, with unnecessary expenses at the expense of poor members when they could have built practical and modest houses of worship. They were inconsiderate to have spent hard earned money unnecessarily.

Secondly, MCGI houses of worship have surrounding market places. Its true but is it bad? Yes the INC said quoting:

Matthew 21:12-13

[12]And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

[13]And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 

As you can see the blockquoted words, it implies the market place is inside the house of worship implying the worship area that Jesus was angry of and not at those outside. The house is the temple itself as it say:

1 Kings 6:17

[17]And the house, that is, the temple before it, was forty cubits long.

Therefore, Jesus was angry at those inside the house of worship and not at those outside. MCGI has no market places inside worship area per se but outside it. Therefore, we have not violated any christian law by having merchendizers around the worship area.

Thirdly, worshippers sleeping on the worship area during worship services. Its true. Though as a church we have one mind, judgment and rule, we don’t enforce these by constraint. We do it by request or petition neither by force as expressed:

2 Corinthians 9:7

[7]Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give (such as judgment)  not grudgingly, or of ANAGKE (constraint or force): for God loveth a cheerful giver.

 Though we have doctrine of putting all things decently and in order, we do it by petition not by force as the verse above says and likewise as how Paul never used force over christians but through request only as expressed below: 

Therefore force is not a vital integration of faith, but petition is. Petition is the christian method of enforcing the christian law never by force except in expulsion cases therefore if any christian bec of forces of circumstances decided to sleep, we don’t force him not to sleep to ever say, dont sleep or else get out. We don’t do that. We don’t employ force. Therefore you could see some sleeping on worship area during worship services. Force of circumstances don’t qualify anyone as guilty. Otherwise, repeated offenses after reprimand would be expelled.

The dilemma for these critics is this: Are those who sleeps christians or not, members or non-members?

Fourthly, Bro Eli has a mansion while we have pig pens as house of worships?

True. The question is, is it not fair? For the logical thinker, it is fair. We live modestly as by the opportunity of the lowest cost living depending on circumstances. Philippine standard of living permits us to acquire our houses of worship as practical, durable and comfortable you can see through our local houses of worship. We depend on practicality and justice. We are poor contributors so it is imprudent to waste money for unnecessary luxury kapilyas. It is not justice to the poor thus we preferred modest houses of worship you called pig pens. Therefore, this standard of faith, that is using practicality and justice, is the one used for acquiring the Brazil mansion. Having high standard of living there, i believe Bro Eli prudently preferred a low cost quality of living as justice for his poor members thus he chose the lowest cost housing open for possibly at least 20-50 tenants, that is the Brazil mansion. Nobody knows the cost though it was approximately 40million pesos nothing of that sort was certain. It could be 1 million pesos only. Who knows? Therefore, nothing solid ground for conclusion, why do you judge him as though he is like you having luxury kapilyas at the expense of poor members?

Lastly, note how INC criticizes Soriano like a disgusting criminal to hurl utmost criticism grounded on unvalidated presumptions even to the point of low level criticism of our houses of worship denigrated as pig pens when they have too, houses of worship in like manner or even worst than us, worse than pigpens. Look below for my proof:

By force of circumstances, that is poverty, INC cannot provide for better houses of worship like the rich Spanish style edifices of its time, so why do you criticize us, when by force of circumstances too, that is the biblical doctrine of practicality, modesty and justice, we are bent on modest buildings?

Why criticize us as having pigpens for houses of worship when yours as pictured above look like a monkey house?

You are throwing rotten eggs on Manalo for being hypocrites!

What the f….!?


The topic was about Amos 8:11-12 famine of God’s words that led to the death of the physical church of God before then restored as MCGI. My defense was Amos 8:11-12 is a random narrative inserted in the chapter. Random narrative means an out of context insertion or an out from the sequence of events, an out of order narrative. I tried to prove it by showing God’s typical way of using random narrative in the bible which Benfrancis indirectly though unaware admitted to be true. After apparently realizing his blunder was irked and loses temper threatening to ban me from the group that has re-accepted me back after they kicked me out by reason of my strong apologetics.

Here is the biblical random narrative example:

Genesis 2:18-19
[18]And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
[19]And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

As you can see, this is not a succession of event bec it is a random order of event. Being random order of events, then it is a random narrative akin to Amos 8:11-12 being an out of order event from the surrounding verses that particularly happens in reference to the death of the church. As you can see, the reality of random narrative is biblical, justifying our belief of Amos 8:11-12 as an out of order narrative or a random narrative. These catholics failed to refute but resorted to temperamental accusation of lying, hurled to my person.

Here is an excerpt to the temperamental dialogue:

Did he kick me out? Who cares? Your strictness is irrational and rigid.

For those who cannot get why I said he indirectly admitted in favor of my random narrative concept, I’ll show you. He said: (paraphrase)

The baptism of Jesus mentioned in the present happening is a thing in the past.”

How could a thing in the past be among the present happening if its not an out of order insertion? Being an inserted, out of order narrative with regards to the present happening logically qualifies it as random narrative and by conforming to it as an out of order narrative, he admitted it indirectly as a random narrative complementing my concept he wanted to destroy. Realizing that apparently, he got angry.

He seem to be ignorant regarding indirect admission.

Note: the name of the group is CATHOLIC TRUTH EXPLAINED WITH CHARITY

Explanation for random narrative:


I’ll refute one of the Catholic’s best argument to support church continuity.
Firstly, they say, the church exists throughout all generation as it say:


Throughout all ages is the same as throughout all generation as it say:



Does throughout all generation suggest an all the time existence?

We, mcgi, believes in the death of the physical church thus throughout all generation doesn’t imply it as all the time. How does god use the term throughout all generation? Does it have no period as exception?


Is all ages or all generation suggesting all time, day to day? Did god REIGN forever in ZION AS THEIR GOD all the time?








Meaning, there was a time  throughout all generations, that god did not REIGN as god in ZION, as it say: ISAIAH2:6 THOU HAS FORSAKEN THY PEOPLE, THE HOUSE OF JUDAH which concludes that throughout all generations does not necessary mean all the time.
SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN THEREFORE BY GOD SAYING the church lives throughout all ages or generation?
LOGICALLY, ALL GENERATIONS IN THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION with the exception of the period the physical church died as suggested by context, that there was a FAMINE in hearing gods words over the world as it say in AMOS8:11-12.

Generation is defined differently than how people normally understand generation as a period of 25-30 years, biblically, a generation is a term that refers to the important events within the christian dispensation.

I could only surmised. 

JESUS MINISTRY ON EARTH as a generation, which was the seeking of the lost sheep of Israel

PAUL’s ministry and the widespread  gentile conversion as one generation.

The death of the physical church would precedes another generation, the re-establishment of the church.

THE GREAT TRIBULATION time before rapture is one generation.

THE MILLENIUM is one generation.

THE ARMAGEDDON time is one generation..

These as I presumed is the totality of all generation wherein the church existed.

ONE GENERATION in gods vocabulary doesn’t conform to man’s knowledge, which sums up to 25-30 years.

It could be a thousand year or more.

Nothing of those sort completely happened yet since Jesus time up to present, which means, from JESUS time including our present time until JESUS return is one generation. SO TO GOD, a generation is not the same as how man perceives it as 25-30 years…
CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS A FAMINE OF GODS WORDS resulting to the death of the physical church, “Throughout all generation”  logically, implies the times wherein the church existed regardless of the more than thousand years it died, so as suggested by the presence of the FAMINE likewise as how god REIGN as god in ZION throughout all ages but having a point in time that he forsook it and did not reign..as their God.

JESUS suggested one generation is from his time to his coming but that is a generation regarding the signs of the times. It is not how it defined the generations of what is said as “throughout all generations”, BEC as I said, there was a time that the church died…

What could be logically deduced is that THROUGHOUT ALL GENERATIONS in referring to the church’s existence don’t consider the years it died as generation…LIKE HOW GOD DID NOT CONSIDER THE TIME HE DID NOT REIGN AS PART OF THE ALL THE GENERATION HE REIGNED..



What does it mean therefore by throughout all generations?