About author & site






OVERVIEW: I wrote this site,
in my spare time, over the 
last 43 years: 1981–2024.


I paused for 4 years, 1998–
2002, because my children
were young and because I
was doing an office job
that needed my focus.


All other jobs were menial
(photo: me, at work, 2022).
These jobs left my mind
clear, to think & make brief
notes while at work, & fresh
to think & write after work.







I became a Christian early 1976, aged 21,
when a family problem forced me to pray.

That that first prayer, and subsequent prayers,
answered at all
showed me that Christianity worked.

But, for the first five years of being a Christian,
I increasingly wanted to know how Christianity worked.

        Not only for myself, but also to help me
        communicate Christianity to others,
        especially to those who insist on logic, i.e. men.



So in 1981, five years after becoming a Christian,
I started thinking and writing.

First of all I wrote & printed
some logical, objective, leaflets,
(instead of the usual, emotive, subjective, ones)
and handed them out on the street.
I also saw that many in the secular world
were also thinking:


        “Scientists are right.
        Yet they can’t be right:
        we must be more than just intelligent animals.”


YouTube: – Supertramp’s The Logical Song [1979]
        and later:
YouTube: – Lily Allen’s The Fear [2008].



I continued to think & to write
such that, three years later, in 1984,
the leaflets had grown into a book manuscript.


I sent it to three publishers, but they all rejected it.
But that was OK with me, because,
while waiting for their replies,
I’d generated more, important, material.

Little did I know that this was to continue
decade after decade:
        I’d be building a structure of concepts,
        like joining the dots:
        more discovery than invention.

Jumping ahead fourteen years, to 1998:
        The internet & computers had arrived
        and I did two computer courses to get an office job.

        I was then able to convert my manuscript
        into this website. I then continued working on it
        for another two and a half decades, until now, 2024.
        (I think it’s finished – but I’m not certain.)






Going back to just before I started thinking & writing:
regarding the evangelistic reason
behind writing this manuscript/site,
I came to reckon that:

        We have no grid
        for the gospel to land on.


        Or rather, we have a grid
        onto which the gospel cannot land.


        1) Pseudo science:
                 Surely, the big bang, the age of universe,
Darwin’s theory of evolution,
                 all prove that God does not exist.


        2) Poor logic:
                 All wars are caused by religion.
                 Christianity is a religion.
                 So Christianity is bad.


        3) Incomplete thinking:
                 For something that existed before the universe
                 the triune God of Christianity is too complex.
                 Indeed, the whole Bible narrative is so complex
                 that it’s as improbable as Greek mythology.



Hence, in this site, I re-present Christianity:


        So that it can land on our grid,
        be understood objectively.


        Then an unbeliever might say:
                 “Well, I still don’t want to become a Christian
                 but at least I understand it now.”
                 “Now that I understand Christianity, I’m in.”


        The apostle Paul did miracles:
            a) to meet people’s dire medical needs,
            b) to help people believe:
Acts c13 v11    Acts c14 v10 
Acts c16v18    Acts c19 v11-12 
Acts c20 v10-12    Acts c28 v5 
Acts c28 v8.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Just like Jesus said would happen.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Mark c2 v1-12    John c4 v48


        But he also sometimes used logic:
            b) to help people believe. 
Acts c17    c18.






Again, going back to just before I started thinking & writing:
I asked God for the tools I’d need
to write this manuscript/site
(experiences, abilities, books, etc).


God replied, over a number of days,
that he’d already given most of them to me,
and any he’d not yet given, he soon would.


Hence, in 1981, I started thinking & writing.



One unusual piece of guidance, from God, was as follows:


Five years into writing, in 1986,
I was washing up, as a temp, in a kitchen.


The catering contractor was about to change
and I was agency staff with the outgoing contractor.
So I knew that, if I asked the new contractor
to take me on as permanent staff, they’d say “Yes”,
because I’m already established
and they wouldn’t have to pay an introduction fee.


Hence, a day or so later,
as I was walking into an 18-30s after-church meeting
at a house I’d never been to before,
I asked God which, of the following, he wanted me to do:
        1) Ask the new contractor
            to take me on as permanent staff.
        2) Pursue a career in art & design.
            (I’d done that at college
            and privately hoped God would lead me that way.)
        3) Some other answer, of God’s choosing.
I looked around the entrance hall, for a Bible,
that I could randomly, but faithfully, open
for God to speak to me.
But there was only a Thompson’s phone directory.


        (N.B. There is much more to hearing from God
        than only random print, only hearing a voice,
        only having a dream/trance/vision, etc:
                 It could be a mistake.
                 It could be madness.
                 It could be God.
                 It could be a demon.

                             Perhaps see third cell of: WHAT TO PRAY FOR.,,,,,


I picked up the Thompson’s directory,
envisaging seeing an advert, in the yellow pages,
of a printers or suchlike,
confirming my hopes of art & design.


But as I picked it up, I could see, from the edge,
that there were no yellow pages;
only white name-&-address-&-phone-number pages.


        I promptly opened it, randomly,
        and the page I’d opened it was,
        indeed the first thing my eyes landed on was,
        the name & address
        of the place I was currently working at!


        Stunned, I continued staring at it for a while,
        then closed the directory & put it down.
        I didn’t tell the others,
        I thought it would be beyond them.


After the meeting I prayed:


        “Lord, I’m certain this is either Satan,
        or more probably an underling demon,
        or it’s you. 
        But I don’t think it’s demonic
        because it’s not much of a temptation:
        I don’t want to do it.


        And it’s not impractical or wrong.
        Just honest, boring, work. 


        So, I reckon it’s you. 
        So I will do it.


        And, if it’s a mistake,
        I’ll leave it to you to redirect me.”



After several years the workload became impossible.
So, with apprehension, I left,
but nothing untoward happened.


Then, as I got successive washing up jobs,
I realised God’s message in the phone directory:


    God wanted me to do simple, menial, work generally:
        So that I could think & make brief notes at work
        and, after work, still have a clear head
        for even more thinking & writing at home.
        I.E. He wanted me to produce this site
        and knew it would take a long time to do it.


I, only gradually, realised the full meaning of this,
as each year, then each decade, rolled by.


If I’d known at the beginning, or even after a decade or so,
that it would take 43 years to produce this website
(even though it was only most of my spare time)
then I’d have been seriously tempted to quit or cut corners.



In 1998, after twelve years of washing up,
ad knees forced me to change job
from stand-up-menial to sit-down-office work.


But even that job turned out to be
centred around this site:


        The office job (four years working with
        software writers & computer hardware engineers),
the two computer courses I needed to do
        in order to get the job,
prompted me, and enabled me,
        to turn my manuscript into this website.


        Mind you, the office work itself was on a computer.
        So, after work each day, I was too tired mentally
        to work on my manuscript/site.
        Also my children, young at the time,
        needed my attention.


        Hence, for those four years,
        the manuscript/site was on hold.






Going back to just before I started thinking & writing:


        I noticed that famous historic
        scientific inventions & discoveries
        had often been made
        using minimum data but maximum thinking.


        So, I reckoned that, in this information-rich age,
        the data I needed was probably commonplace,
        so the main thing I needed to do was think a lot.


        It seems I reckoned correctly.






Incidentally, God guides us all in very different ways.
So be open minded about how he will guide you.


Also, be open minded about what he will guide you to do.


In the Bible, in Acts, God:
        Told Peter, a Jewish fisherman,
        to be the apostle to the Jews.
        Yet told Paul, an ex-Pharisee,
        fully conversant with Jewish laws,
        to be the apostle to the gentiles (gentiles are non-Jews).


This seems to be the wrong way round:


        1) Bill Johnson concludes, I’m sure rightly,
        that God did this so that
        the credit for their successful ministries
        would not go to Peter & Paul, but to God.


        2) Andrew Wommack identifies with
        the parable of the soils.
Matt c13 v3-8 & v19-23    Mark c4 v3-8 & v14-20  
        Luke c8 v4-15  


        In the parable, the successful soil
        was the soil that lacks,
        had nothing added to it, was only soil.


        Likewise Andrew is happy to admit
        that he has few natural abilities, is only soil.


        (Pride in, even mere self-awareness of, your abilities
        can get in the way of God’s Spirit working through you.)



        Combining 1) and 2)
        I reckon that God did what he did, with Peter & Paul,
        because it can work better, quicker.


        If your ministry is territory you’re familiar with
        so that you have opinions & thoughts of your own,
        then you’ll need to continuously make an effort
        to give God’s spoken words priority.


        But if God puts you in a ministry
        that you are totally unfamiliar with,
        then you’ll be all ears
        so you will get things right every time.



        Though, as I say, it can work better, quicker:


        There are ministries, natural rather than miraculous,
        where the opposite applies.









This site is philosophical Christianity:

        Philosophy is:
                 Thinking inside and outside of every box
                 to get the big picture: an unknown adventure.


        Philosophical Christianity is:
                 As above, except you have some idea
                 of the big picture, of where you’re going.

,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        C. S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity is philosophical Christianity.



This site is not Christian philosophy:


        Christian philosophy is:
                 Principles for Christian living.
                 Reasons, usually biblical, for Christian lifestyle.

,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        For example: Andrew Wommack’s teaching:
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Andrew Wommack Ministries: Christian Philosophy. . . .






92.76% of this site is entirely my own material
(more about percentages shortly).

My work tends to be rather technical:


        Like explaining how a scene is beautiful:
        conceptually dissecting & analyzing it.


        Or like explaining how a certain joke made you laugh:
        studying every psychological & physical mechanism.



        Explanations of beautiful scenes and funny jokes
        are not what God, or the comedian,
        designed them for, intended them for.


        They were intended to match our design.
        Hence few people benefit from a technical explanation.



        If you don’t want
        a technical explanation of Christianity, 
        then perhaps read the practical webpage:
A better site than this one,
        and the links within it.
        (This link does not open a new tab.)


        But if you think you would benefit from
        a technical explanation of Christianity,
        then read the site proper
(i.e. the pastel pages, with dark text;
        get to them from the long column of links
        on the left of the
Home page).






This site is called How Christianity Works.
So the principles in it aren’t necessarily ones you apply.
They are principles that God’s Spirit applies.


        It usually takes too long, and is unnecessary,
        for you to compute a situation to know what to do.
        It’s quicker, simpler, and more reliable,
        to listen to, and to obey, God’s Spirit.


        Just believe, and renew your mind accordingly.
,,        ,,        Perhaps see first cell of:
,,        ,,        WHAT IS A BELIEVER? WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?. , , , ,






Some parts of this site are mere common knowledge.
But they are there because:


    o   I’ve tried to make this site
        as comprehensive as I can
        which sometimes means
        including what’s commonly known.


    o   Sometimes a piece of common knowledge
        is a step
        in a long train of thought.






This site is a product of my own thinking.


(Or rather: the 92.76% of it that I produced
is a product of my own thinking.)

This site is not some long prophesy from God,
some dictation from God.
   1 Cor c12 v8. . . . .


(Can’t imagine anyone would think it is.
But, just in case.)






God does indeed give, to Christians:
        words of knowledge,
and words of wisdom.


But they are usually of relatively practical matters:
life stuff, not big picture stuff.


For example, God may tell you:

    o   about someone’s problem (word of knowledge)
o   and what God says to do to fix it (prophesy)
o   adding that, whilst doing so, you should not, or should,
        mention some certain aspect (word of wisdom).


For the difference between prophesy & words of knowledge
YouTube: – Prophetic Word vs. Word of Knowledge
,,                 // Katia Adams // Vineyard Insights



God’s only direct contributions to this site were:


    o   He told me why Jesus fasted for forty days & nights:


                 God had asked me:
                         “Why did Jesus need to fast
                         for a full 40 days?”
                I couldn’t think of the answer.
                Then God said to me:
                        “Because he was fully human
                        as well as fully God.”
                So I wrote it.


                 I use this in the fourth cell
God’s Spirit went into Jesus) , ,

                 the first cell of


    o   God told me (nagged me – because I wasn’t keen)
        to rename the manuscript/site: How Christianity Works:


                 Previously, I had called it:
                         initially: The Nitty Gritty
        then: Nitty Gritty
            then: Logical Christianity.






An unbeliever will say:
        “God speaks to you?
         And you can, in Jesus’ name, do miracles?
,,        ,,          ‘Do’ is the verb used in the KJV.

        Who do you think you are?”
because they think that someone’s got to be good enough
to hear from God & do miracles.

        They see
        that no-one is good enough.


        But they don’t believe
        that Jesus’ crucifixion made all of us good enough.

                 Believing this
                 lets the Holy Spirit in
                 through the front door of your mind.

                 Renewing your thinking
                 to be like Jesus’ thinking
                     (stopping doing what’s wrong,
                     doing what’s right,
                     forgiving everyone,
                 lets the Holy Spirit in
                 to every room of your mind.






The ability to think
is not one of the gifts of the Spirit
Rom c12 v6-8   1 Cor c12 v8-10
        Perhaps also see first cell of:


Whereas, a word of knowledge
is one of the gifts of the Spirit.


A word of knowledge is faster, & more accurate,
than thinking:
        Partly because God’s ability to think
        is better than your/my ability to think.
        Mainly because God’s database
        is vastly bigger than your/my database
        and includes all the future and all the past).


However, if you are good at thinking, & know much,
God doesn’t want you to dumb down.


        He just wants you to not be proud & independent,
        wants your heart to renew your mind,
        so that you can use it in conjunction with
his loving, powerful, wise, very knowledgeable
        Holy Spirit within you.


        He wants:
                 teamwork, conversation, company,
                 to give and to receive,
                 to love and to be loved,
                 for there to be ever more relationships,
                 constructive relationships.


                 For God is not only the Creator,
                 he is also the Constructor.






the ability to think
        is not one of the gifts of the Spirit
Rom c12 v6-8   1 Cor c12 v8-10   
could have made me think that God
disapproved of this site.


So, if it weren’t for:
o   God’s guidance – encouraging me,
One unusual piece etc earlier on this page).
o   Support, for my conclusions, in the Bible.
then I may not have had the courage
to write such webpages as:
Hell does not exist yet. , ,



Perhaps also see:









The brain itself is not only an
information storer (knowledge and belief).

It’s also an
information processor (thinking).

        Knowledge  =  a structure.
        Belief  =  a structure.

        Thinking  =  a process, a change of structure.



Logical thinking.

        Logical thinking is intuitive.
        But, if you want, see:
Wikipedia: Logic,
        or use Google to find an explanation of logical thinking.



Lateral thinking:


        I learnt lateral thinking from
        The Use Of Lateral Thinking (1967 edition)
        by Edward De Bono.


        I used both
        the accidental, natural, lateral thinking
        that Edward identified:
,,        ,,        ,,
        1) It’s insufficient data that usually causes logjams for logical problems
,,        ,,        ,,        rather than your lack of processing ability.

,,        ,,        ,,        2) Likewise, when you need to generate a new idea:
,,        ,,        ,,        logic alone often fails to deliver.

,,        ,,        ,,        However, in both cases,
,,        ,,        ,,        people have often found that they get inspiration:
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        At odd times.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        When they go somewhere else.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        When they do some unrelated activity
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        (so always carry notepaper & biro).


        and the
        deliberate, artificial, lateral thinking
        that Edward invented:

,,        ,,        ,,        Again, for the problems in paragraphs 1) and 2), above:

,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Turn around and add, to the problem, the first thing you see.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Or randomly take some data out.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Or imagine the problem is already solved:
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        what would it look like from the other side?
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Or imagine the problem from a worm’s eye view,
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        or a Martian’s eye view, or etc.

,,        ,,        ,,        Regarding generating new ideas:
,,        ,,        ,,        most will be useless, but a few will be good.

,,        ,,        ,,        For both solving logical problems and for generating new ideas,
,,        ,,        ,,        you need to alternate lateral thinking with logical thinking:
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Logic alone – and you are merely a computer.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Lateral alone – and you are mindlessly playing.



William of Ockham’s thinking tool (Occam’s Razor):


        Identify what’s not important – and cut it off.


        E.G. Of two possible explanations
        (say two explanations for something’s existence):
                 one simple,
                 one complex,
        the simple one is probably the true one.



René Descartes’ thinking tool:


        Divide a complex problem into smaller problems
        to make it/them easier to solve.
        Not just in maths, but in any area of life.



Descartes’ thinking tool (above)
inspired me to use other mathematical processes
in non-mathematical material:
        i.e. addition, subtraction, multiplication,
        sets & subsets.


I call this  mathematical grammar.



Descartes’ thinking tool also inspired me to:



to produce:

particularly, what I call:

To these:

I then apply:

a complex concept
simpler concepts

universally usable
conceptual building blocks


universally usable
conceptual building blocks

mathematical grammar


hence my webpage:
Proof of God’s existence. , ,





I also try to present my finished conclusion
using mathematical grammar:


        I try to use such words as:
                is, is not,
                only, also,
                 all, none,
                with, without,
                always, never,
                because, so/therefore/hence/thus,
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        I try to use the words ‘so’ or ‘therefore’ or ‘hence’ or ‘thus’ 
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        rather than the word ‘because’
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        so as to keep the train of logic running forwards.
                same, opposite,
                before, after,






In 1982, about a year into writing this site,
when it was still a book manuscript,
I felt God telling me to tear it up:


        I had got to a state where I had a mess of ideas,
        couldn’t see the wood for the trees,
        and was frustrated with the project.


        So I assumed God was frustrated with it too
        and that’s why he was telling me to tear it up.


So, reluctantly, I tore it up, destroyed it.


However, I had unwittingly committed it to memory
such that, during the next three months,
I fretfully went over it all, in my mind.


Finally, I blurted it all out on paper.


To my delight I found that, during those three months,
the unimportant material
had all but dropped out of my mind
and the important material
had ordered itself organically.
Organic’, here, meaning:  like a spider’s web
with the most important bits in the middle.


God had introduced me to a method of editing
that I call ‘editing-by-forgetting’.


Though I’m glad I never had to do that again.



Back in 1977 approx I had read Tony Buzan’s book
Use Your Head, published by the BBC’s Open University.


It shows that:
        The mind is structured organically,
        like a spider’s web,
        with the important bits in/near the middle.


        Hence any material that you want
        to learn, or to comprehend better, or both,
        is best laid out, like a spider’s web,
        on an unlined sheet of paper


Hence, soon after the ‘ripping up the site’ event
(previous cell), I laid out the sections of the manuscript,
like a spider’s web, with the more fundamental sections
in/near the middle.


I then ‘plucked up’ the middle of the web, 
and made that the beginning of the manuscript,
and stretched it out, so that it became linear.


Perhaps see: COMPREHENSION. , , , ,






I’ve always had habits
that later turned out to be useful thinking tools
for writing this site:


    1)     I’ve always used my mind:
                 As a processor
                 and a holistic-memory storage.
                 Not as a detail-memory storage.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        This has always seemed efficient to me
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        and was confirmed when I read:
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Wikipedia: Ten percent of the brain myth. , ,

,,        ,,        ,,        ,,       
Hence always I have paper & a biro in my pocket.

,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        I also value: Google, my PC’s internal search engine,
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        and my KJV Bible in MS Word.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Perhaps see: How to put KJV into MS Word. , ,


    2)     I habitually continue with something
            even when it seems I’ve arrived:
                     for where I’ve got to
                     might not be
                     the end of the road.


    3)     I habitually keep stepping backwards:
                     to get a better view
                     just in case I’m missing something.

    4)     I habitually extrapolate:

                     I join the dots/concepts 
                     to build a web of dots/concepts.

                     I.E. If a principle is true in a small way
                     then it’s probably true in a big way.

                     E.G. If you can, miraculously,
                     heal non-serious illnesses & conditions
                     in Jesus’ name,
                     then you can, miraculously,
                     heal big & serious illnesses & conditions
                     in Jesus’ name.
Acts c3 v1-16, notice verse 12.

    5)     I habitually scrutinise
                     problems & questions
            to see if, actually,
                     they are also data
                     or even answers.


            Likewise, I often backwards engineer:
                     from a realised answer
                     to a, yet unrealised, question.






I also have thinking tools that I inherited:


    o   Intelligence: 
            A MENSA test shows my IQ to be
            140 on the Cattell B scale.
,,        ,,        ,,        You have to be 148 to join MENSA – so I didn’t make it.
,,        ,,        ,,        (I wish the test measured lateral thinking, as well as logical,
,,        ,,        ,,        though I don’t see how it can.)


    o   Patience:
            I really did need the 43 years minus 4
            that it took me to write this site.

    o   Independence of mind:
            Handy for being against the status quo
            where appropriate.


I say “inherited”.
But, ultimately, everything is from the Creator.

Hence every good thing
is something to thank God for.  
James c1 v17 ,.






It’s not only:
        the ‘processing power’,
        and the thinking tools,
that I’ve mentioned so far, in this section,
that enabled me to write this site.
It’s also:
        the ‘data’,
        my particular life experiences,
were vital:

        Books I’d read
        (especially the Bible and Lateral Thinking).
        Some material about famous historical philosophers.
        Sermons I’d heard, at church, mostly on YouTube,
        and all of Andrew Wommack’s
Audio Teachings.
        Science I’d studied, at school and since.

I reckon God co-ordinated all this data
and indeed everything.

I feel clever, but not that clever.
I feel more like a pawn, or a knight (bit more jumpy),
in the hands of a, considerate, master chess player.

 Later on this webpage I’ve got:
,,        ,,        NATURAL EVENTS
, , ,

and, immediately after it:
,,        ,,        SUPERNATURAL EVENTS
. , , ,









92.76% of this site is my material:


        You can spot my material because it’s:
o   Logical, technical, even scientific.
o   Usually biblical.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Perhaps see: MY ATTITUDE TO THE BIBLE. , , ,

7.24% of this site is other people’s material;
they are usually Christians.


        You can spot other Christians’ material because it’s:
o   Not necessarily logical or technical.
o   Rarely scientific.
o   Always biblical.



By other people’s material I mean that:
1) Their work inspired me.
        2) I quote them, add their work to mine,
            though not word for word.



        I credit other people for their work:


                 I identify all instances of 1) & 2)
                 in the next section.

                 I also
identify most instances of 1) & 2)
                 next to the material itself.


        I am keen to acknowledge their work.
        Indeed, I recommend their websites over mine.
A better site than this one. , , ,



        I did 1) & 2) to make this site
        as complete and as comprehensive as I can:


        It seems I do not have a monopoly of the truth
        nor can I get to the truth before everybody else.









4.71% of this site:
o   Was inspired by Andrew Wommack.
o   Or it literally is Andrew Wommack’s material,
        though not word for word, apart from:


                 his sayings:
                         If you believe God can heal you
                          go to God.
                          If you believe the doctor can heal you
                          go to the doctor.”
                         Don’t think about how bad you are.
                          Think about how good God is.”

                 that I put in:


                 and his saying:
                 God loves us, not because we are lovely,
                         but because he is loving.”

                 that I put in:


                 and his saying:
            Fear is faith in reverse”
                 that I put in:
LOVE & FEAR.,,,,


I’ve coloured, in brown:


    o   All of Andrew’s material.
        Plus copies


    o   My material that was inspired by Andrew’s material.
        Plus copies


    o   Bible scriptures that Andrew drew my attention to
        that I would not otherwise have thought important.
        Plus copies.
,,        ,,
        The 4.74% figure
,,        ,,        does not include brown Bible scriptures,
,,        ,,        i.e. does not include brown italic letters.



Dan Mohler’s teachings
and Mark Hemans’ teachings 
(and many others’ teachings,
perhaps see next webpage:
A better site than this one)
overlap with Andrew Wommack’s teachings.



    o   I discovered Andrew early on.


    o   Andrew’s teaching is more objective than the others’.
        So, in writing this, rather technical site,
        his teaching dovetail’s with my work
        better than the others’.


Hence, I have a brown colour for Andrew’s teaching
but no colour for Dan’s or Mark’s or others’ teachings.
Bear this in mind when reading brown text.

    See comparison cell,
starting: Dan’s style is,,,,,,

    See comparison cell,
I reckon that the differences between
,,       Andrew Wommack and Mark Hemans are

    See text, starting:
Indeed, one distinct thing about Pentecostal practices,,,,,
    to bottom of cell,



1.55% of this site:
Why the four gospels (four books in the Bible)
,,     are so Old Testament
, , , , ,
was inspired by chapter four of
Pastor Chris Oyakhilome’s book: Praying the right way.


    In it, he rightly writes
    that the New Testament actually starts
John c19 v30, not at Matt c1 v1. , , , , ,


Though I add the clarification that:

    Jesus was the first to preach Forgiveness
    hence the gospels are New Testament.
    But the gospels lack Pentecost
    hence the gospels are Old Covenant.


    Perhaps see:
, , , , ,
    and its subsections


    and part 4) of:
. , , , , ,



0.58% of this site:
, , , , , ,
and the section after it,
were, at least partly, inspired
by Russel Earl Kelly PhD
speaking in a TV debate on tithing:
YouTube: – Should The Church Teach Tithing?,,,

I also quote a line of his speech
(though not word for word).



0.18% of this site: GREAT FAITH, , , ,
was inspired by Pastor Joseph Prince
speaking on one of his TV programmes
about a conversation he once had with God
(though not word for word).



0.55% of this site,
the first two cells of:
were inspired by Mark Hemans
in one of his sermons
(though not word for word).






The above percentages apply to
only the site proper,
(i.e. the pastel pages, with dark text;
get to them from the long column of links
on the left of the
Home page).


I worked out the percentages, in MS Word,
by counting letters (using Edit then Replace):


,,       ,,        ‘not bold’ – so as to not count titles


,,       ,,        ‘not italic’ – so as to not count Bible scriptures
,,       ,,        (well, virtually all of each Bible scripture,
,,       ,,        see: CHANGES I MAKE TO KJV BIBLE SCRIPTURES) 


,,       ,,        ‘Times New Roman’ – so as to not count: 
,,       ,,        ,,        ,,        hyperlinks,
,,       ,,        ,,        ,,        and Arial-small-font (practical) notes.


,,       ,,        ‘colour brown 100 50 0’ – so as to count:
,,       ,,        ,,        ,,        Andrew Wommack’s material
,,       ,,        ,,        ,,        and copies,
,,       ,,        ,,        ,,        and my material inspired by Andrew Wommack’s material
,,       ,,        ,,        ,,        and copies.


,,       ,,        I then rounded the percentages up/down to two decimal places.



,,       ,,        Diagrams in this site are JPEG files.
,,       ,,        Hence the text in them (there’s not much, in total)
,,       ,,        is not digitally findable.


,,       ,,        So, to make half-remembered diagrams findable:
,,       ,,        ,,        ,,        I duplicated each diagram’s text
,,       ,,        ,,        ,,        in white 1pt Times New Roman (white – so that it’s invisible)
,,       ,,        ,,        ,,        next to the diagram.






The first cell of:
was inspired by Nasir Siddiki
speaking on one of his TV programmes
and is a negligible fraction of a percent of this site.



The second cell of:
, , , ,
partly consists of information from:
Revival Today (site no longer exists)
Wikipedia: Hamartia,
    (though not word for word)
and is a negligible fraction of a percent of this site.



The first two paragraphs:
        of item 1)
        of the eighth cell
Hence, if you want to do wrong)
and its copy,
the first two paragraphs:
        of item b)
        of the fifth cell
4) Combinations of 1) 2) 3)) , ,
were told to me
by the vicar of my previous church
(though not word for word)
and are a negligible fraction of a percent of this site.



A few lines, of the sections: 
GOD THE SON, , , ,
stating that Jesus feasted, not fasted, just prior to Gethsemane,
are from
a webpage of Bible.org
(though not word for word)
and are a negligible fraction of a percent of this site.



The fifth line of the section:
is from:
YouTube: – Kingdom Awakening SOS,
      Brook Potter’s Q&A Times

    (though not word for word)
and is a negligible fraction of a percent of this site.



In the second paragraph, of item 2),
of eighth cell (starting:
Then, when Jesus was 33)


        I did not write ‘Jesus went to Hell’
because of the article:
Did Jesus go to hell
        between His death and resurrection?


Likewise, the fifth paragraph, of fourth cell
The gospel (all of this yellow cell))



In fourth cell of: GOD’S METHODS,, , ,
I write: ‘
Sudden relief is how a comedy punch-line works’.
(This is a negligible fraction of a percent of this site.)


    This was inspired by the late Sir Ken Dodd OBE
    who, speaking live on BBC Radio 4,
    said he’d spotted a link between relief and laughing
    when he noticed that, immediately after
    a successful revolution in a South American country,
    people ran out into the streets, laughing.






I already realised the truth of the following two paragraphs,
technically speaking.
But I had not, originally, put them into this website.


        It usually takes too long, and is unnecessary,
        for you to compute a situation to know what to do.
        It’s quicker, simpler, and more reliable,
        to listen to, and to obey, God’s Spirit.


        Just believe, and renew your mind accordingly.


But watching Mark Hemans operate
prompted me to put these two paragraphs
in seven places in this website!

These two paragraphs are still only a
negligible fraction of a percent of this site.
But I now see that they are such
an important, practical, principle,
that Mark consistently uses,
that I want to, here, give him the credit
for drawing my attention to it.


        Perhaps see seventh cell
Mark Hemans, Australian)



Regarding the third column
in the chart
in the second cell of
I was struggling to get my head around
the concept of bigender,
and indeed the many other genders,
when my son said he saw all genders
as: “Male & female, and bothness & neitherness.”

This helped me make my chart complete.









This whole website was initially inspired by
C.S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity.


But Mere Christianity and this website
are so different
that I call the result my own.



My webpage:
The basic ways that God & Satan operate , , ,
was inspired by C.S. Lewis’ book The Screwtape Letters.


But The Screwtape Letters and my webpage
are so different
that I call the result my own.



My webpages:
Evidence that animals cannot evolve
,,     to become humans
, , ,
More evidence that animals cannot evolve
,,     to become humans
, , , ,
were inspired by Tony Buzan’s book Use Your Head,

published by the BBC’s Open University in the 1970s
(I read it in 1976 approx)


        Use Your Head is a set of students’
        study tools and memory aids.


        However, it also shows
        that the mind is structured organically.
,,       ,,
        ‘Organic’, here, meaning:  like a spider’s web
,,       ,,        with the most important bits in the middle.


But Use Your Head and my two webpages
are so different
that I call the result my own.








My webpage Idolatry, guilt projection, & evasiveness , , ,
was partly inspired by my experiences
working in a Christian drug rehabilitation centre (1977-78):


        I saw how, in a junkie, when the drugs take over,
        extreme evasiveness is produced.


        They may con/rob loved ones and blank out the guilt
        and convince others, & even themselves,
        that nothing’s wrong.



That same webpage, Idolatry, guilt projection, & evasiveness, , , 
was also partly inspired by me falling in love,
in the infatuated sense,
on several occasions, when I was younger.


        I noticed that I was weirdly oblivious
        to the woman’s imperfections:
        could think of her only as perfect
        (this sometimes happened the other way around too). 


        Whereas I now see only God as perfect.









As a young boy, four or five of us did a trick
where one of us was sitting down
and the rest pressed down on his/her head
for a some minutes.


Then we’d suddenly stop, and the ‘pressers’ would be
able to lift the sitting person, out of the chair,
using only one finger each, under each knee and armpit.


The logic was that the person suddenly felt very light
so surely they were very light.  And it worked.


Subjectively, at the time, it seemed logical.
But, objectively, I soon realised it was physically impossible
and considered it weird.  I now reckon it’s demonic.



At secondary school (1970 approx)
my classmates held a séance.
The surface was uneven, so I saw that
the glass was being moved supernaturally.


My classmates were asking subjective, personal, questions
which I thought added to any danger.


I merely risked asking how many coins were in my pocket.
(I’d forgotten, and wanted to test
whatever the thing/being was.)


The glass suddenly picked up speed
and went to ‘No’, repeatedly.
This indicated, to me, intelligence & evasiveness.



My classmates wanted me to leave (I was spoiling things)
and I reckoned the whole thing was potentially dangerous
anyway, so I left.


But, for the first time, I saw that
things/events supernatural can exist.


        With hindsight, I see that séances:
                 seem spiritual,
                 seem of elsewhere,
                 seem deep.
        But conversations with the dead are, ironically:
                 still worldly,
                 still, actually, of the hopes & fears of this life,
                 soulish, not spiritual.






Again at secondary school, I noticed that I could tell
which patterned card someone was looking at.


It worked with people I liked, people like-minded to me,
people who I empathised with.

Unlike the séance experience – it wasn’t disturbing.


So I assumed it was telepathy.



A few years later, in 1974, at college,
I took up this telepathy again.
But this time, I noticed that I could see
through the back of a playing card
without anyone having looked at the front.


It seemed to tire me.
I could successfully do it only once an hour.


I experimented with:
        Various materials: lead, plastic, steel, etc.
        A high voltage electric field
        (a toy electric shock machine).
to try to block the ‘ray’ or whatever it was.
But none of them stopped it,
which was odd, considering the low voltage
of the human nervous system.



Then I realised there was one factor I’d not thought of: time.
This was easy to test, and, scarily, proved positive.


I say ‘scarily’ because time travel puts the ability
out of the realm of the natural
and into the realm of the supernatural.


It seemed to be:
        Me looking, at the card, in the future,
        to check my prediction.
        Then that image, going backwards, in time,
        to the present.


This seemed to be the mechanics of it
because the experience was such a visual one.


But, whether the above was the case or not,
it was eclipsed by my following observation.



I soon felt, and found,
that the ability would only work:


    o   Providing I let the ability grow vanity in me.


    o   Providing I at least tried to see the ability as my own
        (even though I was increasingly aware
        that it was another doing it for me).


    o   Providing I used the ability for amusement, self-glory,
        perhaps even income,
        rather than
        for something practical, anonymously,
        or at cost to me.


    o   Providing I let it all:
                 erode the reliability of knowledge,
                 muddy science,
        for me, and perhaps for others.


Perhaps see later section: TRICKS & MIRACLES , , ,
and the links within it.
(This link does not open a new tab.)



The above conditions proved, to me,
the existence of an intelligent, manipulative,
malevolent, being: Satan.


They also proved that this Satan
(though, more probably, it was merely an underling demon)
hates structure:
        be it social structure,
        or knowledge,
        or, in particular, understanding.



I deduced from the above
that God must also exist.


        Such a destructive being as I’d met
        would never have created the universe.


        Try to destroy it – maybe.
        Try to damage it – probably.
        Abuse it – yes.
        Make it – no.



These conditions made ‘my’ new ability
pathetic & disturbing.
        For example: I feared I might be given visions
        of people’s futures
        that included unavoidable disasters.


So, after a few weeks delay (due to the pull of vanity)
I stopped doing any of it



So, in 1974, I concluded that there must be a God.

So I looked at the monotheistic religions
and saw that Protestant Christianity was the answer.

But this wasn’t enough to make me become a Christian:
        I was a young man and wanted to enjoy life,
        wanted to wait until I was old, or at least older.


However, two years later, early 1976, aged 21,
problems hit my family that forced me to pray.
God answered my prayer, with a small, but loving, miracle,
and I was hooked, became a believer, a Christian.


Indeed, it was the loving nature of the miracle,
plus that it challenged me to become loving,
that got me hooked.



Since 1976 I have experienced various miracles.


        For example, in 1986:
        see cell starting
One unusual piece of guidance, , , ,
        near beginning of this webpage.






My intellect has always been sound.


But, foolishly, I’d sometimes listen to demons temptations
and, emotionally rather than logically,
respond positively to them.


Hence, for example, in 1989,
fter my shift of washing-up in a kitchen in an office block,
the office workers were starting a mostly-fancy-dress party
in the staff restaurant.


Las Vegas Casino was the theme.
I thought I’d join in at the roulette table.


“No harm in impressing people” my head said.
But my heart was saying
You are the one about to be used.”


I’d soon won several stacks of high value chips,
and that  aren’t I special, but I feel so lonely  feeling
came over me again, after all those years.



A player next to me said:
    “You certainly know how to play this game”.


I thought, by way of reply:
    “This is a mug’s game.  What’s to know?
    And I wouldn’t play if I couldn’t cheat.
    And I can’t tell you how I’m cheating
    because I’m so ashamed
    & because you’d want to impose tests on me.
    Worst of all, this is feeding my vanity:
    telling me I’m clever when I’m doing nothing.”



Ashamed and disenchanted, I started losing chips.


I didn’t find out there’d been a prize (a giant Teddy Bear)
until I’d lost them all.  I’d have felt awful if I’d won
and would have promptly given it away.


And this, in 1989:
        fourteen years after becoming a Christian,
        eight years after starting this site.
I should’ve known better.


But I’d learned my lesson.
For example, I even throw away scratch cards
that people give me, as a present, in case I win!
If anyone supernaturally blesses me
I want it to be only God.

Demons will always welcome you back
but you’ll always eventually regret it.



The symmetrical contrasts that I experienced
        Satan’s & demons’ aims & methods
        & God’s aims & methods,

contributed to:

        the webpage:
The basic ways that God & Satan operate, , , ,
        notably to its section:


        and to the section

        and to other parts of this site.



I use the experiences of wrong things I’ve done,
if indeed they can be used,
for enlightenment & for good:


        Paul had a useful arsenal of knowledge of Satan’s ways
        partly because he had been used, by Satan, so much
        before he became a believer.
2 Cor c2 v11


        So it was his ‘religious’ teaching he dumped.
Philippians c3 v8

        Perhaps again see:






In 2005, sixteen years after the gambling fiasco,
I had the task of getting rid of a ghost,
a ghost that would physically do things.


I failed.  Other believers tried but their success
lasted only three days.


At church, a fellow Christian suggested that all of us
pray the Lord’s Prayer, daily, together,
because of the line:
        Luke c11 v4:
        ctd … deliver us from evil.   KJV
Interestingly – it worked, providing none of us
did anything wrong that day.


Then, in 2008, I went to hear Pastor Chris Oyakhilome
at a big Pentecostal meeting, A Night Of Bliss, in


I’d seen his TV programmes, but they only had the miracles
whereas I wanted to experience a whole service:
        preaching, teaching,
        praise & worship, praying,
        as well as miracles.


The meeting did not disappoint:
people were getting out of wheelchairs etc.


So, when I got back home,
with an unselfconscious faith in God,
I commanded the ghost, in Jesus’ name, to go away,
and it did.


It does come back, to do annoying things.
But only very rarely, and only very little things,
and only if we’ve done some wrong.






Later that year (2008) I discovered Andrew Wommack
and increasingly decided that, of all the
biblical teacher-healers I was discovering,
his material is the most comprehensive & correct.

I’ve learnt a great deal from his teaching,
I’ve listened to all of it.

But I don’t agree with all of it.
Perhaps see:

(I suspect I don’t agree completely
with anyone’s teaching.)



Since 2008, mainly as a result of listening to Andrew,
I have, in Jesus’ name, healed a dozen or so people
of small
illnesses: sprains, migraines, stomach aches, etc.
But that’s all.  I am a work in progress.

        From 1981 to 2008:
                This site was purely philosophical,
                that’s all I thought & wrote about.

        From 2008 onwards:
                I thought & wrote about
                the miraculous as well.

I’ll be glad to finish writing this site.
I think that’s what’s holding me back.



Sometimes, after doing some small miraculous healing,
I’d see the effects of a demon conning the person
into accepting their illness/injury back again.


The second half of Andrew Wommack’s TV programme
The Believer’s Authority: Episode 6, Jan 7th 2013
tells us what to do about this.


The above teaching of Andrew’s
and the small miracles I’ve done
inspired the section:





In 2009 I planted a five-foot
cherry tree in my garden.


I planted it in a small pit of
compost (should’ve used soil)
in solid clay & a little topsoil.


I also forgot to tease out
the root-ball.


As a result of all this
it’s not grown much
in the last 14 years.

Photo taken April 2022.



In 2014 I thought:
        “If Andrew Wommack can repeatedly
        command a blessing on his mother’s pecan trees,
        so that they fruited,
        (see first half of the same
        Andrew Wommack TV programme
The Believer’s Authority: Episode 6, Jan 7th 2013)
then I can do the same to my cherry tree.”


Hence I’ve often commanded a blessing on it.
Hence I believe, and expect, my cherry tree
to, one day, miraculously become huge
and full of cherries.



Some months later I thought:
        “We have pet guinea pigs
        (& then a pet rabbit).
        Hence we let the lawn grow high, as food for them.
        But, any cherries that drop
        will get lost in the long grass. 
        So I’ll have to mow at least some of the lawn.”


So I thought:
        “How big will the tree be?
        How far will its branches extend?
        How much lawn do I need to mow?


        There’s a path very near the tree,
        with lawn (at that time) on both sides of it:


                Does the cherry-drop zone
                include the lawn on both sides of the path?


                Or should I cut the grass
                only on the tree side of the path?”


Then I randomly opened my NIV Bible
and immediately saw, within the verse 
Eze c31 v4 NIV,
the phrase ‘all around its base’.


The really neat thing about that phrase
is that it is indeed all about a very big tree.


I still sometimes used the NIV back in 2014.
This was just as well since the KJV phrases it completely differently.









1) Where material evidence
    (not absence of material evidence)
    contradicts a part of the Bible
    then I say:


            “As this material evidence is true
             then that part of the Bible must be untrue.”


    Hence, for example, I say:


            “A number of sciences:
                     solar physics (nuclear physics),
                     geology (plate tectonics),
                     palaeontology, & zoology,
            corroborate with each other:
                     to show that the universe is
                     13.8 (or 26.7) billion years old,
                     and started with a big bang.
            So the Bible’s account:
                     that God made it about 6,000 years ago
                     and it took him only six days,
            is not true.”


            Mind you, see my section:


            I think that Christians who insist that:
                     God made the universe in six days
                     or even that the entire Bible is true,
            are mistaken.


            But, I notice that God responds to them
            exactly as if the entire Bible were indeed true.



2) I think that Jesus, being God’s only begotten Son,
    told God’s thoughts more authoritatively
    than other parts of the Bible tell God’s thoughts.


    So, where there is any difference, in letter or in spirit,
    between what Jesus says and what other parts say:
            then the Jesus parts are right
            and the other parts are wrong.


    For example, see: GOD’S WORDS ON SIN.


,,        I don’t mean Old-to-New Covenant differences
,,        that should be there.

,,        ,,        ,,        Perhaps see later section: THE LORD’S PRAYER   
,,        ,,        ,,        and the links within it.
,,        ,,        ,,        (This link does not open a new tab.)

,,        ,,        ,,        My  WHO AM I IN CHRIST?  poster has 20 verses on it,
,,        ,,        ,,        all of them very edifying.   But I had to cross out two of them
,,        ,,        ,,        (the only two Old Testament ones as it happens),
,,        ,,        ,,        Ps 107 v2  &  Isa c46 v4, because they promised safety.
,,        ,,        ,,        Whereas Jesus promised persecution.
,,        ,,        ,,        Perhaps see later webpage: Persecution. ,, ,,



3) Unlike Andrew Wommack, and indeed many Christians,
    I do not think that all non-Christians go to Hell.


            I wrote the webpage:
The two ways God sorts us:
                    Judgment & Forgiveness
, , ,
            and the ten webpages after it
            to address this matter.



4) I disregard, and so do not use,
    Bible verses that are not in the earliest manuscripts,
    that were added centuries later by scribes or translators.




    (There are so few of them that it’s not
    as disastrous a thing to do as it sounds.)



5) I see a small amount of the Bible as not God-inspired,
    (e.g. much of
Ecc c1 – c6).


    But I see all of the Bible as God-approved,
    with nothing to be added or taken away
    (except, of course, for point 4), previous cell).


            Being, all of it, God-approved
            sets the Bible apart from all other books.


,,        ,,        ,,        Though actually, the Bible is a collection of books & letters,
,,        ,,        ,,        prayerfully & thoughtfully put together by early Christians.
,,        ,,        ,,        Perhaps see: Wikipedia: Biblical canon. , ,



6) Although I see all of the Bible as God-approved,
    I do not see all of the Bible as vital, or even important:


            For example, in Paul’s second letter to Timothy,
            the paragraph:
                2 Tim c4 v13:
        The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus,
                when thou comest, bring with thee,
                and the books,
but especially the parchments.   KJV

            This verse was important to Paul
            and to the letter’s first reader.
            But of no importance to us whatsoever.


    So I disagree with Christians who say that
    every part of the Bible is equally vital
    or even equally important.
    (I’m no evangelical, and this site is not apologetics.)

    Conversely I think of some parts as extremely important
    and yet skimmed over by many Christians.






7) Many preachers & teachers
    (including biblical teacher-healers
    such as Wommack, Hemans, & Mohler)
    tend to see the Bible as chronologically homogenous.
    They teach using, say, 8 scriptures
    that are spread out across the Bible.
    And this usually works (or they make it work).


    But, chronologically, the Bible is three eras:
            1) Pre-Jesus era:
                     when the Father did miraculous good and bad.
            2) Jesus’ ministry era:
                     (crucifixion, resurrection, & Pentecost)
                     when Jesus did miraculous good only.
            3) Spirit-in-believers era:
                     when believers do miraculous good only.


    Hence, in the four gospels,
    Jesus seemed to preach, primarily, repentance:
        He had not yet died & risen
        so not yet supplied God’s Spirit to us.
        So his Punishment, in our place,
        could not yet be believed in.
        So he could not yet preach ‘believe’
        as a thing that could be done.
        He could only preach ‘repent’
        as a thing that could be done.


    However, post-Pentecost:
        Believing could be done.
        And, as believing would produce a renewed mind,
        and, as a renewed mind would cause both:
            doing natural, & even miraculous, good
            not doing bad,
        then preaching repentance,
        preaching stopping doing bad,
        would become unnecessary.

            Hence repentance is indeed preached in
            but always to unbelievers.

            Likewise, in
Heb c6 v1-2, Paul urges his readers
            to move on, from repentance, to perfection.



    Thinking of the Bible as one item
    results in preaching repentance
    the same way Jesus preached repentance 
    (Mark Hemans does this).


    A renewed mind is a rather abstract concept
    for many Christians.
    Hence they don’t fully embrace it.
    Hence many dabble in sin/wrong-doing.


    Hence preachers (such as Mark Hemans)
    do well to preach repentance
    instead of preaching a renewed mind.

    However, the idea that we need to repent of sins
    implies that sins still exist.
    And believing that sins still exist
    can erode, in a logical mind,
    the belief that Jesus made all sins disappear.






To conclude:


    If you insist on things being logical, then:


            wherever the New Testament,
            from Pentecost onwards:
                     says ‘sins’
                     read it as ‘wrongs’:


                     See: How God Forgave us all.,,,,,


            and, instead of thinking:
                     ‘repent of your sins’
                     ‘renew your mind’.


,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        See:
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        YouTube: – Best description of the Gospel - Dan Mohler.
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        and:
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        YouTube: – The Gospel, straight up, no additives.


,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        See third from last, & second from last, paragraphs
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        of:                 
,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        ,,        Hell-A Reality Or A Metaphor? By Andrew Wommack. 



    But, if you don’t mind things being a bit illogical,
    and if you still tend to do wrong,


                     Jesus made all sins disappear
                    (which implies sins don’t still exist).


            yet also think:
                     ‘repent of your sins’
                     (which implies sins do still exist).






Home page