Good luck!


Who or what governs the universe and our lives? Is it the stars?–then read your horoscope. Is it pure luck?–then good luck to you! Is it other gods?—then by all means bow down to them! The definition of luck (or chance) varies: for some it is “a purposeless, unpredictable and uncontrollable force that shapes events favourably or unfavourably for an individual, group or cause”. Others say it is “events that influence one’s life and are seemingly beyond one’s control”.[2]

When thought of as a factor beyond one’s control, without regard to one’s will, intention, or desired result, there are at least two senses that people usually mean when they use the term, the prescriptive sense and the descriptive sense. In the prescriptive sense, luck is a supernatural and deterministic concept that there are forces (e.g. gods or spirits) that prescribe that certain events occur very much the way laws of physics will prescribe that certain events occur. It is the prescriptive sense that people mean when they say they “do not believe in luck“. In the descriptive sense, people speak of luck after events that they find to be fortunate or unfortunate, and maybe improbable.

Therefore, cultural views of luck vary from perceiving luck as a matter of random chance to attributing to such explanations of faith or superstition. For example, the Romans believed in the embodiment of luck as the goddess Fortuna, Carl Jung viewed luck as synchronicity, which he described as “a meaningful coincidence”.

Adapted from Wikipedia

As Christians we discount these notions which dethrone God and purposely rob him of his glory! We believe in the God of the Bible who rules over all and in his son who said “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Any Christian who believes in luck is not worthy of the name! Moreover our theology can be summarised thus:






Slides based on Ron Hanko’s “Doctrine according to godliness.”


Taking Scripture Seriously

open bible



‘Both sides take the Bible seriously.’ This is a common claim heard in the debates about women-in-office and homosexuality. Christians who favour the approval of women-in-office and of homosexuality make this statement in order to establish their views as legitimate interpretations of the Bible. So they make it appear that they and their opponents are the same in that both take Bible seriously. But even if those who approve of women-in-office and homosexuality do take the Bible seriously, whatever that may mean, their view and approach to Scripture must be recognized as radically different from those who believe the Bible prohibits women-in-office and condemns homosexuality. In 2002 JI Packer walked out of an ecclesiastical assembly in protest over a decision by that assembly that gave approval to homosexual unions. In this 2003 article in Christianity Today Packer explained why he walked out of the assembly. I only share with you his explanation of how the two sides have radically different views of Scripture. After reading the second paragraph I immediately thought of Rob Bell. Here is what Packer wrote about the two views of Scripture,

“One is the historic Christian belief that through the prophets, the incarnate Son, the apostles, and the writers of canonical Scripture as a body, God has used human language to tell us definitively and transculturally about his ways, his works, his will, and his worship. Furthermore, this revealed truth is grasped by letting the Bible interpret itself to us from within, in the knowledge that the way into God’s mind is through that of the writers. Through them, the Holy Spirit who inspired them teaches the church. Finally, one mark of sound biblical insights is that they do not run counter to anything else in the canon. “The second view applies to Christianity the Enlightenment’s trust in human reason, along with the fashionable evolutionary assumption that the present is wiser than the past. It concludes that the world has the wisdom, and the church must play intellectual catch-up in each generation in order to survive. From this standpoint, everything in the Bible becomes relative to the church’s evolving insights, which themselves are relative to society’s continuing development (nothing stands still), and the Holy Spirit’s teaching ministry is to help the faithful see where Bible doctrine shows the cultural limitations of the ancient world and needs adjustment in light of latter-day experience (encounters, interactions, perplexities, states of mind and emotion, and so on). Same-sex unions are one example. This view is scarcely 50 years old, though its antecedents go back much further. I call it the subjectivist position.”

Which group do you follow? Warning! The very words of Scripture will be your judge (John 12:48)—JK.

Sorry I cannot acknowledge the writer of this blog as I kept no record. If you know please let me know.

Darwin, the caste system and the health and wealth gospel.

A MUST READ from Daniel Courney, missionary in India.



The ‘prosperity gospel’, the Hindu caste system (‘karma’ and ‘samsara’), and ‘survival of the fittest’ (evolution theory) are three popular ideologies that are seemingly unrelated but which are actually synonyms for the same nefarious notion, different takes on the same idea – that the weak suffer for their own faults. It is a devilish doctrine as old as Job’s three friends and spurious rabbinical dogma and it is a miserable comforter and worthless physician indeed. It has been and continues to be an attempt at a theological, philosophical, and scientific justification for slavery, genocide, abortion, racism, euthanasia, ethnic discrimination, apartheid, casteism and other ineffable iniquities that occur all around the globe (‘iniquity’ connoting unjust inequality and unfairness). “Survival of the fittest” (evolution theory) is the polar opposite to the aims of mercy ministries and altruistic humanitarian endeavours. According to this wicked, misanthropic theory, the weak are (and should be) eliminated to make room for the more genetically advanced. Logically it follows then that we should not aid the weak, poor, and suffering, because they are afflicted for their own inherent biological inadequacies, and by perpetuating their existence we thus endanger the future development of the human race. The full title of Charles Darwin’s book is “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Did you catch that last part? ‘Favoured Races in the Struggle for life’? Only the strong survive, Chuck? How does nature ‘select’ who is to live on and who is to die? Violence. That’s right folks – Darwinism implicitly promotes murder, rape, adultery, conquest, polygamy, oppression, war, genocide, invasion, tyranny, ad nauseam. Darwinism was introduced at a critical juncture in human history — mid 19th century, Industrial Revolution, Colonialism– to attempt to rationalize racism, exploitation of indigenous peoples across the British Empire, ‘Manifest Destiny’ in the States or forced relocation of native Americans (e.g. the infamous “Trail of Tears”), and the enslaving of Africans by both Britain and America at the time. It was this notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ that motivated Hitler’s and the Nazi’s elimination of and horrible eugenics experiments on the ‘mentally insane’, autistics, and other handicaps. It was this racially driven biological evolutionism that was the incentive for the Holocaust, as Hitler believed Germans to be the true “Aryans” (Sanskrit, “noble” or “of noble birth”) and all other races, especially Jews – to be grossly inferior and obstructions to racial purity. As the humanistic godless Georgia Guidestones dictate, the world population should not exceed five hundred million – and five hundred million of the best. Thus the quote by Jacques Cousteau, famous oceanographer, French naval officer, and nature conservationist: “What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It’s a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species…It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day” (we’ll start with you, Jacques). Philanthropy and humanitarian missions are entirely counterintuitive to ‘survival of the fittest’ and only serve to impede humanity’s evolution to the ‘next level’.

Hinduism, a religious tradition almost as old as human civilization, also promotes the oppression of the weak. The Hindu caste system is based on the related yogic doctrines of ‘karma’ (action) and ‘samsara’ (reincarnation). The ‘feet’ of Brahman (the creator deity of the Hindu triad) represent the ‘Dalits’ (lit. ‘oppressed’) or ‘Shudras’, the lowest caste (Gandhi called them ‘Harijan’ or ‘children of God’, though he did nothing to help them but only encouraged caste bigotry). Caste is ‘varna’ in Sanskrit – the ancient, liturgical language of India and Hinduism — and literally means ‘colour’, as in skin colour, with the higher castes being fairer skinned. The ancient Aryan invaders from the Iranian Plateau who stratified Indian society were much lighter than the black Dravidian peoples of the Indian peninsula and wanted to prevent the pollution of their ‘superior’ gene pool and lighter skin colour and created the caste system to that end. What determines, or rather predetermines, which caste an Indian will be born into according to Hindu Brahmins, or those of the highest priestly caste – the ‘head’ of Brahman? The quality and moral character of his ‘atman’ (soul or self) in previous iterations (whether they be incarnations as a dog, monkey, or merchant). Ergo, those who are born into lower castes, with physical handicaps, or into utterly destitute socio-economic conditions were born thus due to sins they had committed in some past life out of memory. Don’t help the poor and weak – the universe is giving them just sentence for their past sins. Instead, exploit them for cheap labour.

The ‘prosperity gospel’ that so many nominal Christians espouse today perpetuates this same infernal and barbarously insensitive philosophy. According to this convenient and popular theology, a person only suffers because of their lack of faith. Your degree of health and wealth is indicative of your measure of faith – faith and fortune are directly proportionate. Hence, if you are poor, lame, or sick it is because of your lack of faith. Many who are indigent, lame, or diseased with permanent and incurable ailments are callously counselled that they suffer for their sin of faithlessness. I have personally witnessed this scandal of the name of God and pure religion. There is nothing new under the sun, ladies and gentlemen. Ancient heresies just recycled and branded with new labels and different terminology to try to dupe us.