Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started

Catastrophic Oatmeal

From the Nobody Cares department, here is a food thing I put together to break from the routine and change things up. Not as drastic as Catastrophic Eggs, though, and easier.

Descriptions and word usages for oatmeal around the world have different meanings. It is common in the formerly United States to avoid the word porridge and simply call cooked oatmeal — well, oatmeal.

A magazine for men’s style and health (I disremember if it was online or in print) suggested oatmeal with protein powder. This powder is intended for workout recovery and such, but putting it in oatmeal is supposed to help give your metabolism a kick start in the morning.

Oatmeal bowl, my photo, modified with FotoSketcher and FotoFunia
Oatmeal bowl, my photo, modified with FotoSketcher (left and right artsy images) and FotoFunia (for the cyclist part)

Pick up some “quick” or “instant” oats at the grocery store. It’s not expensive. More expensive is the whey protein powder. You can get it in chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla. You won’t need much so that makes it last longer.

The common oatmeal mix for one bowl is half a cup of it with one cup of water in a bowl. I add half a scoop of the powder (too much may not mix well, so experiment if you’ve a mind to). It cooks in our 1,000-watt microwave in just under two minutes, and it’s amusing to watch the mix grow in the last half minute. Once it looks like a muffin top, cut the power and watch it settle back down.

Stir, add milk if you want it thinned out a bit, and since I used strawberry protein this time, I drizzled some chocolate syrup on top.

This is just my experimentation. I microwave it in a plastic bowl that I don’t mind if it gets “scarred” from the hot stuff, but y’all may want to use a ceramic bowl or even cook it on the stove. (Plastic heats faster.) Feel free to modify and improvise, that’s what I do. You’ll thank me later.

Advertisement

Evidences for God and the Bible

Knowledge, question on island, Pixabay / Arek Socha

Christians usually know when an inquirer is on a genuine search for knowledge or just a misotheist who is playing games. The latter may think they do not have to play with the hand they have been dealt, so they try to mark the cards, deal from the bottom of the deck, and pull other foolish tricks with their eternal destiny. It is bad enough to demand proof for the existence of God, but worse when they insist that there is no evidence for him.

That is amazingly arrogant. When such a statement is made, this child is reluctant to spend a great deal of time with that person. Sure, I can make some replies and see if I can spot any sign that the Holy Spirit is working in his or her life. Sometimes they start with bluster, then interact more civilly than before.

One jasper was so supercilious when asked what evidence would convince him, he said to present it and he would decide if it was worthwhile. I could tell that the goalposts were already in his pickup truck, ready to be moved. Also, he was judging other Christians and me as stupid because we could not meet his rigged challenge! I didn’t play. After all, there are times to end the discussion and find better things to do. Jesus did that.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favor of giving evidence when needed. Apologetics is important to help remove stumbling blocks for people coming to faith in Jesus. Certain kinds of evidence are not needed, as evidence for God is all around and they have no excuses. However, evidence must be presented in a presuppositional framework. That is, we presuppose that God exists and the Bible is his Word, and we will not accede to their naturalistic presuppositions.

Most people are indoctrinated into an evolutionary worldview. It’s not just about science, philosophies of life and morality are taken from it. But not consciously for the most part.

We have two articles to consider that are on a similar theme. The first one is about the “no evidence” claim, and it has a different approach we can use to get the attention of a scoffer. I reckon this is best in person with friends or family.

The ‘no evidence for God’ claim, though, is an interesting one. It often works to frame the discussion in such a way that only we have a burden of proof. It allows the unbeliever the comfortable position of the skeptic: they get to poke holes in our case without ever having to make a case for anything themselves. This however sets up a false dilemma: either we can convince them that God exists, or our faith in God isn’t reasonable. But there’s practically always a way to doubt any argument for God (or practically any argument for any philosophically interesting conclusion, for that matter) that’s not obviously wrong to all rational people. Plus, skeptics regularly demand airtight arguments practically anyone would have to accept before they would believe in God (Agnosticism). As such, we almost certainly won’t convince them. But then that supposedly means that our faith in God isn’t reasonable. The game is rigged from the start. Heads, the skeptic wins; tails, we lose.

You can read the entire article at “No evidence for God?Don’t forget to come back for the next part.

You came back. Groovy! Unbelievers and even some Christians may wonder if the Bible is useful and can be trusted. I did. I was raised in an Untied Methodist (misspelling intentional) home and was allowed to attend a Babdiss school. Those Fundamentalists (I am not using it as a pejorative) insisted on the Bible being the inerrant word of God, so I did some investigation on it and on beliefs. That is, with an attitude toward doctrine-type statements of, “Where did you get that?”

Any question of origins is historical in nature, not entirely subjected to empirical science. The Bible, through its authors, makes some pretty strong statements about itself. It is self-attesting, and a reliable historical document based on eyewitness accounts. Historical matters have been verified, never disproven. Also, there is prophesy that has been fulfilled, sometimes hundreds of years later. Documented.

People today must judge between two contradictory worldviews: the biblical worldview and the evolutionary worldview.

I’m a lawyer, so I think about this like a legal case. Juries have to judge between opposing litigants, like we have to judge between worldviews. Juries do it by weighing the evidence. Let me give an example from a case I worked on.

I’d be much obliged, and it would be in your best interest, to read that one too. It can be found at “Do we have enough evidence to trust the Bible?

Resurrection or Evolution as a Basis for Hope

Believers in universal common descent do not have a track record for consistency, especially when it is coupled with militant atheism. Evolution is supposed to be random, so there is no teleology. The work of the Master Designer is rejected and things only appear designed — a risible escape mechanism.

Eugenics is supposed to help evolution along, giving it a hint of intelligent design. Another way to help evolution along is through transhumanism. We become something better by harnessing and even merging with technology. Again, evolutionists are inconsistent because neither eugenics nor transhumanism are truly evolution.

https://pixabay.com/illustrations/cyborg-circuit-board-dna-4094940/
Cyborg and circuits, Pixabay /Gerd Altmann (geralt)

People believe in cosmic and biological evolution, and in deep time, despite the evidence, not because of it. There are gobs of evidence supporting creation and refuting evolution, but people prefer “blind, pitiless indifference” to the rational conclusion that God is the Creator.

Study on it a spell. With atheistic materialism, there is no reason to believe in the consistency of the universe; laws of nature cannot exist. Neither can laws of logic. Atheism is incoherent, making it impossible for science to exist. The biblical worldview makes sense of what is observed and is internally consistent; it explains laws of nature and logic.

Going further, an evolutionary worldview ultimately ends in despair. In biology, death is necessary for life because countless billions of life forms supposedly lived and then didn’t make the cut, so new ones evolved into being. If transhumanism works, ultimately, everything dies in the ultimate heat death of the universe. People choose to believe this unscientific philosophy of despair.

Unless everything merges into a consciousness outside the confines of time and space. That is metaphysics, old son, not science. Ironically, God the Creator does exist outside the confines of time and space.

Scientific evidence for evolution is utterly lacking. Were evolution true, innumerable transitional fossil forms between basic kinds of creatures would clearly document the evolution of life from single-cell organisms to humans. Yet even among evolutionists there are no undisputed examples of these “missing links.”1 Moreover, the spontaneous emergence of life from nonlife has never been observed and seems absolutely prohibited by the laws of physics and chemistry. Despite intellectual pretensions to the contrary, people accept evolution not because of scientific evidence but because of its emotional appeal.

To read the rest, see “Future Hope: Evolution or Resurrection? No form of materialism, naturalism, evolutionism provides salvation. Only despair. There is no hope in evolution. Christians have hope in Jesus Christ, who died on a cross, was buried, and his bodily Resurrection defeated death. We have a blessed hope, and you can too.

Not Necessarily the Best Times to Post on Social Media

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Those who write weblogs and have websites naturally want to have people read their material, so they use various strategies. These include SEO, publicity, optimizing for mobile devices, submitting sitemaps to search engines, and more. Naturally, we want to be noticed on social media.

There are how-to guides on many of those subjects, and there are numerous guides about the best times to post on social(ist) media. Why? Because that is where the people are — potential readers, customers, converts, and all that good stuff. But those guides are lacking.

Smart phone with social media by Gerd Altmann at Pixabay

Smart phone social media, Pixabay / geralt (Gerd Altmann)

Up the trail a spell at Slimjim’s spread, there was a discussion about “Thoughts on Decrease of Blog Views Over the Years.” All of those things mentioned earlier play a part in decreases as well as increases, and the conditions also change. That’s one reason those “best times” lists are incomplete.

From what I saw, various social media have times when they had the most activity, therefore, those are the best times to post. (Those things focus on times in the Eastern US, since the rest of the world apparently isn’t as important.) One astute writer pointed out that yes, they are busy, but to schedule posts for those peak times also leaves you open to a lot of competition for attention. He suggested using the best time for you. Also, my audience at The Question Evolution Project is more active away from peak times.

Shared links from friendly people in our own tribes also help.

Those of us who have had experience in the retail world know that there is a plethora of merchandising based on motion pictures that are (or expected to be) blockbuster hits. If one of those has subject matter that sparks the interest of the public, they will search for it.

Weblogs on Christian theology, presuppositional apologetics, biblical creation science and that sort of thing are unlikely search subjects for people who are all het up about Avatar: The Way of Water. (Conversely, this child is not interested in that movie.) For certain niches to be noticed, it seems that they need a boost from a celebrity like Chris Evans or someone who publicly expresses an interest in one of the niches topics. If Patrick Mahomes mentioned our subjects, we may have ridden that popularity bronco through February 2023, but that would have probably calmed down in a couple of weeks.

Of course, if you have sloppy writing and poor content, tricks of online optimization are not likely to be much help.

Something else that should be mentioned is that people are using all sorts of browser enhancements (be careful you don’t add something that spies on you, check them out before adding) that add security and secrecy. Many browsers themselves also do that. My statistics counter promises to record hits, but I have serious doubts that it gets them all. F’rinstance, someone quoted part of my text back to me but his location (known to me) did not register, well, you get the idea.

Those of us who are not doing marketing for a living and want to follow the Lord’s calling for our lives should remain faithful. It gets difficult at times, boy do I know! We should desire to please him, not to get a prairie schooner-full of hits and the dopamine rush. If our areas of study and writing/speaking get popular for a spell, fine, be ready and go with it. Or not. Stay faithful.

Question Evolution Day and Ape-Human Language

This is a simple lesson that people can get from Question Evolution Day: Demand the science. Actually, this is something other biblical creationists and I have been saying for a mighty long time, but this is a time to emphasize it.

It is also very helpful to learn how to spot bad logic. The stuff these owlhoots spread is saturated with faulty reasoning, but since the secular science industry seems to work closely with Rusty Swingset and his crew up yonder near Deception Pass at the Darwin Ranch, their negative influence is seen. All sorts of intellectual and scientific shenanigans happen at the Ranch, but they sure do know their propaganda tactics!

The Monkey Who Had Seen the World, Edwin Henry Landseer
The Monkey Who Had Seen the World, Edwin Henry Landseer

Chimpanzees are portrayed as more intelligent than they really are, and assertions about having a common language between humans and apelike ancestors way back in the mists of time are just that: mere assertions. These things were followed by that confirmation bias stuff again. The bad reasoning and question-begging nature of the research involved should draw howls of outrage from scientists who have knowledge and integrity. I lack belief that it will happen, since the storytelling supports the Bearded Buddha.

There are a host of scientific problems with evolution. One egregious difficulty is an untestable proposition that people (and primates) evolved from an unknown common ancestor from an unknown time ago. As one evolutionist said, “When you look at the narrative for hominin [bipedal apes, including modern humans] origins, it’s just a big mess—there’s no consensus whatsoever.”

In addition, the evolutionary origin of the unique ability of human speech and language remains totally unresolved. . .

Undeterred, evolutionists expect to find part of the answer by observing “gestures that wild chimps and bonobos use to communicate,” since they allegedly share a common ancestor with us. But interpreting ape gestures is necessarily subjective. . .

To read the entire article and learn a few things (and possibly laugh at the absurdity of those evolutionists), head on over to “Do People and Wild Apes Share a Common Language?

The Intelligent Designer

Here is a nice surprise for Question Evolution Day! Keith Petersen sent me a note, and he did one of the things that is suggested for QED. Namely, wrote a weblog article about creation and named the 12 February observance. I’m doing that WordPress “reblog” thing now.

To the Remnant

Throughout my life, much of what I have read indicates that many people seem to think Christianity and science are in opposition to each other. However, many big-picture scientific findings have strengthened my faith immeasurably. With Question Evolution Day (QED, on February 12, which is Charles Darwin’s birthday) almost here, I’ve been thinking about intelligent design recently. Never heard of QED? I hadn’t either until a year ago; thank you, Creation Cowboy Bob Sorensen!

In regard to intelligent design, let’s begin, briefly, with the origin of the universe. Without getting technical, let’s just say that it is now widely accepted that the universe had a beginning; this is true regardless of whether people believe in a “young” earth or an “ancient” one. Why is this important? Because if the universe had a definite beginning, it begs the question of what preceded it and what caused it. For a Christian like…

View original post 725 more words

JWST Continues to Affirm the Young Universe

It did not take long before numerous reports about images from the James Webb Space Telescope became plentiful. I simply posted them on social(ist) media. Biblical creationists were pointing out that evidence for the Big Bang (something sought by the JWST folks, NASA, ESA, and others) was not happening. Things were not looking good for finding the invisible friends of materialists, those rascally extraterrestrials, either.

A bone I keep gnawing on is that there is evidence for recent creation in our own solar system. (Feel free to browse Piltdown Superman for posts with links to relevant articles.) Instead of admitting that their worldview is fundamentally flawed, secular scientists conjure up rescuing devices to preserve deep time. Papa Darwin needs it, you know. Closer to home, or way out yonder in the big universe, the evidence continually refutes the concept of billions of years.

Secular cosmology is in disarray, and instances that cosmic evolution supposedly happened “earlier than thought” by secularists keep cropping up. Creationists don’t need excuses or data-tampering because God is indeed the Creator.

“If the evidence is so clear, why don’t scientists face the facts, Cowboy Bob?”

The answer has nothing to do with science, old son. It is a spiritual problem. Mankind has fallen, which happened back in Eden. The natural person is at enmity with God, and our sinful nature interferes with pretty much every area of our lives — which includes the thinking processes. (This is indirectly supported by “9 Signs That You Might Be An Intellectually Dishonest Atheist.”) Christians are to presuppose the truth of the Word of God. Although misotheists and others say this is irrational, they are presuppositionalists themselves! That’s right, they presuppose atheistic naturalism. The light comes in through the Word of God and the working of the Holy Spirit. The reality of spiritual matters is unthinkable to materialists.

I rounded up a passel of links that support our contention that the JWST is providing support for recent creation and not helping the Big Bang. The most recent article is first, then I drop down to some older ones and work forward. You savvy? Good.

Image at the top:
JWST image of NGC 346 in Small Magellanic Cloud, NASA / STScI (usage does not imply endorsement)

Of Christmas and Paganism

Birth of Jesus Nativity Scene, Unsplash / Walter Chávez

It is that time of year again where people are busy buying presents, playing Christmas music, getting stressed, and being judged for using pagan elements.

Wait, what?

Near as I can figure it, there are three sources for accusations of Christmas having a pagan origin or incorporating those elements: atheists, sanctimonious Christians, and pagans themselves. If a pagan had accused me of using elements of their religious activities, I didn’t know it. Normally, it’s the other two groups of tinhorns.

Professing atheists frequently exhibit both ignorance and bigotry when making accusations — which is both annoying and amusing when they do so on an article they refused to read that debunks their claims. Ironic, huh?

Self-righteous Christians also show ignorance, often acting like atheists in their caustic remarks. They, too, refuse to read/watch material that has a proper historical perspective, preferring instead erroneous traditions. Then they show that they have the “right” beliefs by bashing Christians who do celebrate, violating Colossians 2:16-17 and others. Pastor Sourjowels would be pleased.

What we do not experience is scorn from people who have some historical knowledge.

There are many myths about Christmas, such as Joseph and Mary being turned away from a hotel, the Magi showing up at the time of Jesus’ birth, and others. A few minor errors that most folks don’t know about are not reasons to reject celebrating Christmas.

We also give each other gifts to celebrate the ultimate gift of God, the incarnation of God the Son, the Creator, as Jesus. Also, because the real Nicholas was a gift-giver.

Some Christians say that we shouldn’t celebrate because we’re not commanded to. So? God gave us holidays (holy days), and people have instituted holidays and observances as well. Indeed, Hanukkah was not one of the original holidays that God commanded the Jews to keep, but Jesus participated (Christians can do it as well). There are a couple of Black Cat Appreciation days. Governments set up holidays. This child has set up Question Evolution Day on 12 February. Holidays and observances happen.

The early church was arguing about when to celebrate Easter back in the 2nd century, not if it should be observed. Similarly, Christmas was celebrated in secret (because of Roman persecution) at about the same time as Easter, and has also been celebrated ever since. Naysayers don’t have church history in support of their views.

25 December for the birth of Jesus has supporters and detractors, and unfortunately some get dogmatic about it. A popular belief is that this date was established to Christianize a pagan festival. Studying the Roman calendar, Saturnalia was over by the 25th. Another candidate was Sol Invictus for sun god worship, but that was established long after Christians were celebrating Christmas.

If y’all choose to not celebrate, great. But don’t pass judgment on those of us who do. In the same way, those of us who do celebrate should not look down on those who give it a hard pass. Both groups have freedom of Christian liberty. You savvy that, pilgrim?

The article linked below covers much of what I’ve touched on in detail, and some other items as well. The history is enlightening, to say the least.

Every year I get “love letters”—can I call them that? You know, those letters blasting me with the same old claims that “Christmas was pagan.” For some reason, I’m supposed to repent of not believing the pagans when they insist that their “holiday” is the true one. I’m chastised for not giving Christmas back to the pagans and locking myself in my house from the four Advent Sundays to the end of the Twelve Days of Christmas.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing or poking fun at people for not celebrating Christmas, the resurrection, or their own birthdays. But I think it is wise to refute these claims from time to time as a reminder that pagans usually don’t get it right. Polytheistic and pantheistic pagans—including believers in evolution, Roman and Greek mythology, ancestor worship, Wicca, etc.—attack Christianity with fervor.

I hope you’ll see fit to read the rest and learn, just click on “Was Christmas Pagan? — And Other Attacks on Christmas.” You may also be interested in “The War on Christmas — Book Review.”

The Power of Giving Somone a Bible: My Testimony

Your mother was a Buddhist and your father smelt of elderberries (was an atheist).

We see several things coming together in this atheist’s conversion to Christ, including the work of the Holy Spirit by leading him and working in other circumstances. Giving him the Bible was a major factor.

The Domain for Truth

bible blur christ christianity Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Over the years I have posts on my blog on the self-attesting nature of the Bible.  See Master’s Thesis: The Self-Attesting Nature of the New Testament Canon by John Gordon Duncan, Quick Thoughts on the self attesting nature of the Bible and Introduction to Hermeneutics Series: Session Four: The Doctrine of the Self-Attesting Word of God.

I believe the Word of God when read is powerful to draw people to Himself and save sinners.

Here’s my own testimony.

View original post 325 more words

Darwin and Evolutionary Racism

Although an abolitionist, Darwin was a racist who believed slavery was a good result of his version of natural selection

It turns out I stumbled across another “Note” on Fakebook. This one is from May 2021. Since Notes are no longer easy to locate, I am copying them here and tweaking them a bit. Glad I didn’t do all that many.

Racism is being leveraged for power, but it is being portrayed as strictly the fault of “white people.” Not hardly! It has existed for millennia, but to quote atheist evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” That’s right, evolutionary thinking magnified the problem. It was especially beneficial for white people who were in control.

We hear about Darwin’s 1859 book Origin of Species, but the full title is often omitted (I’ll allow that it’s cumbersome when compared to many books that have short titles these days): On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (emphasis added). It was revised six times, by the way. The Bearded Buddha was a racist, and his ideas were applied not only to African slaves brought to America, but also to Australia, New Zealand, and other places. The idea of “races” not not a biblical concept, but a construct based on evolutionary thinking.

People have tried to defend Charles Darwin because he was a product of his times, but that idea is not consistently applied to other people. Although Darwin was opposed to slavery, he did not do so in his major works and their revisions. (Here are more racist quotes from Darwin.) Also, he saw slavery as a beneficial result of his version of natural selection, and that various “races” of humans were less evolved that white Europeans.

Did you know that the majority of African slaves, after being sold out by other Africans (which should seriously complicate the “reparations” questions) were not shipped to the United States, but to other countries? Also, did you know that there were white slaves in America? There is slavery happening even now, but that is not considered important by leftists and their supporters.

Do I really have to say what so many others are saying? Out of fear of being called “racist”, many facts cannot be presented. We cannot even have serious conversations due to fear of reprisals and censorship. The past cannot be changed. Rioting, looting, murders, people doing secular penance over imagined white guilt by wearing chains or shining shoes… In addition, black people who are Christians and Conservatives are “not really black” because they’re not “down for the struggle”, nor are black people who are educated and have jobs. Those who form companies, recording artists, cereal company mascots, and others change their names for appeasement is galactically stupid. Be honest.

This “protest” stuff is not about George Floyd and injustice, it is a planned movement by leftists who were waiting for an opportunity — it did not happen for other black people on this scale. Know what Lenin supposedly called sympathizers in the West? Useful idiots. The anti-Christian Marxist ideology of Black Lives Matter is using people who are useful idiots to them, and BLM in turn is being used as well. We believe that black lives matter because all lives matter.

Where are the marches and protests for black-on-black violence and racism —

“Whoa there, Cowboy Bob! There’s black-on-black racism?”

You betcha. In fact, I recently received permission from a black neighbor to ask a blunt question on this subject. She said, “Oh yes! It exists”. Imagine one black calling another “monkey boy” because of his skin color!

Where are the protests about black-on-black violence and racism, murders of black police officers, the bigotry of the left telling people that they are too stupid to survive without putting leftists in political office? There are outcries, but Thomas Sowell, Dr. Voddie Baucham, Darrell B. Harrison,, and many others don’t count in the eyes of radical leftists. Why are people like Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Ben Carson, those mentioned above, and others pariahs to the left? Black people should be inspired by them instead of hating them.

For that matter, racism is not unique to white people — not by a long shot. Many of us would like to take people as they are, not as groups, not as members of an ethnic heritage. I resent attempts to place blame and hatred on me for the distant past, and we certainly do not deserve the death penalty for crimes (real or assumed) that happened before we were born.

It is interesting that rioters are being coddled (that’s right, I said it) and their bad behavior is rewarded. It’s not cool to simply walk up and commit battery on someone with a deadly weapon, steal and ruin produce, burn down stores and steal television sets in the name of “justice”. Holding cities hostage with threats of rioting and making leaders clutch their pearls in fear is counterproductive. Blaming racism for your own failures may make you feel better, but it solves nothing. Some even say that blacks have to kill white people. I wouldn’t be surprised if racism increases because of such actions and attitudes. You hate racism? Stop committing crimes.

I am not a “systemic racist” simply because I’m depressingly Caucasian. (My ancestors were not from the Caucasus Mountains, so that outdated evolutionary handle baffles me.) Having voted for Donald Trump does not make me a racist, and people who call him a racist are believing lies because the opposite is true.

Nor am I or any other melanin-deficient person automatically a racist because someone said so. I’ve got some bad news for you sunshine, there is a whole whack of racism against whites. It is not justified, but simply emotive reactions based on hatred. People who have read my work know how I react to arbitrary assertions. This is magnified when such assertions are used for hatred, violence, and political agendas. And how long will people be fooled by fake “hate crimes”?

As indicated before, Darwin can’t be blamed for racism, but he’d have a great time observing and probably telling the world that the actions of leftists prove his theory. Why aren’t this racist abolitionist’s statues being torn down? Why are Lenin’s statues still standing? How about Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood who wanted to cull the black population? They sure are doing a great job, but leftists sure are using those useful idiots to keep themselves in business.

According to the Bible and as affirmed by biblical creationists, there are no races. Ultimately, racism is a problem of denying our Creator, which is the result of sin. Social programs and abolishing the police are not the answer. People need to repent and humble themselves before Jesus.

Here is a message by Dr. James White. Now, I’m not interested in the One True Church™ views and don’t care if you’re a Calvinist or not (I take heat from both Calvinists/Reformed and Arminians), but just pay attention to the video below, willya? (Here is the MP3 download if you prefer, but on my Windows computer, it downloads instantly: https://mp3.sermonaudio.com/filearea/6192021111662/6192021111662.mp3