An Objective Faith: Why Christians Believe the Bible

Often as I surf the Internet debating Creation/Evolution with secular humanists, I find that they try to bolster their argument by accusing me of subjectivity: "All that stuff about God and the Bible is just faith. Faith has no place in science!" In other words, David MacMillan doesn't have a place in science either. I've seen quite a few analogies that try to defend faith. An example of this would be the car analogy: "You have faith that your car will start in the morning." However, this falls short because it deals with faith that something will happen, rather than faith that something is true. Jesus told us to do to others what we want them to do to us. This command stems from the fact that people normally do "unto others" what the others have done to them in the past. So, I'm going to do to the secular humanists just what they have done to me; that is, attack the thing that their arguments rest on. We Christian believe in the Bible. Atheists believe in science textbooks. Let's take Joe. Joe is an fictional atheist freshman in highschool studying biology. He believes what he reads in his science textbook, right? But why does he believe what it tells him? Unless he has examined every statement in the book, he must accept the book on faith. This is anything but a blind faith. Joe has quite a few reasons to believe the textbook. To start with, viable authorities like his teachers and his parents have told him that the textbook tells the truth. His parents and teachers have never lied to him in the past, so the textbook is probably accurate based only on this support. However, this is not the only reason he has faith in the contents of his textbook. Everything that he already knows about biology agrees with what he reads. The book shows careful attention to detail and much planning. Joe knows that all the stuff he has checked makes sense, so he trusts the rest enough to have faith in it. The most important thing, though, is the author. On the front of the book, he can read the author's name followed by a PhD. If the writer of this textbook has multiple PhDs in biology, Joe reasons, he probably knows a lot more about this subject than I do. That's the most important point on which his faith rests: the greater knowledge of the author. These are all the same kinds of reasons that we Christians believe in the Bible. We have faith in the Bible based on different things: the testimony of our elders for instance. Strangely, though, this is used against us: "You just believe the Bible because your parents do." Everything that we understand about the world we live in agrees with the Bible. This is another reason that we accept the Bible on faith. Since we know that the Bible is accurate wherever we have checked it, we can have a strong faith that the rest of it is equally accurate. The last and most important reason that we have faith in the Bible is that the Author is smarter than we are. He tells us in one of the books (2 Timothy, to be exact) that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness." It is true that Christians believe the Bible based on faith. But it is anything but a blind faith. In fact, it takes much more faith to believe in most scientific textbooks than it does to believe in God's Word. The only support of faith in evolution would be the recommendation of our peers. All other evidence supports faith in the Bible. To sum up this post, I'd like to quote the renowned evolutionist professor Richard Dawkins: "All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way." Even when all the evidence is against the theory of evolution, they still have faith that God doesn't exist.

D3's Birthday Party Vacation

Dear Cyberspace, I'm going to be 16 on the 12th of July, but at that time I will be busy at a camp in Georgia. So, I'm having a birthday bash this weekend (June 24th-26th) to celebrate. We are renting a cabin on a lake in a nearby town. Swimming, fishing, disc golf, etc. As a result of this, I probably won't be blogging or commenting until early next week. So long for now, everyone! In Him, David

Link to Me!

Hello Cyberspace, I'd like to thank all the great folks who link to me across the internet. My latest "wholinkstome" search turned up 65 links or more! Thanks, everybody! For all you bloggers who link to my site, I have a great new way to do it. Where, under this part of your Blogger template (Replace "{" and "}" with "<" and ">": {mainorarchivepage} {h2 class="sidebar-title"}Other Blogs/Great Links/etc.{/h2} {ul} you've put: {li}{a href="http://www.standonbible.blogspot.com"}D3's Blog{/a}{/li} replace it with this html code: {li}{a href="http://www.standonbible.blogspot.com"}{img height="32" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/img/154/4310/1024/D3" width="91" /}{/a}{/li}

Experiment with the height and width until you get the size you want. If the image is too distorted, that's ok. If you want, you can click on the link, download the picture, downsize it to the right width, and edit the words "D3's Blog" so that they appear better. Whatever you want to do with it is perfectly ok . . . as long as you still link to me!

If you don't already link to me, please do! Leave me a comment with a link to your site and I will link to it from my site. I'm getting around 20 hits per day not including my own visits, and the numbers keep on escalating!

In Him,

D3

Winds of Change Unravel Progressive Creationism

Today's feature article at www.AnswersInGenesis.org dealt with a new publication by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  To read the article, please click on this link: www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/big_bang.asp.

 

The article is, as always, very well-written.  Basically, a segment of prestigious secular scientists have attacked the Big Bang Theory.  They challenge many of the BBT assumptions, including the speculation that the universe has no center and no edge.

 

This should not alarm the evolutionists out there.  If it's all in the pursuit of "science", there is no reason that this would make the secular world upset.  It's just the rejection of the current model in favor of a new idea . . . that, incidentally, would allow for a young earth.

 

However, this should alarm Hugh Ross and kids like Gabriel Bertilson (no offense, Gabe, I'm just identifying you as a progressive creationist).  In his book about progressive creationism, Hugh Ross basically claims that he got the Big Bang/Day-Age idea directly from scripture without any significant outside input.  He tried to fit the Genesis account around the BBT.  Now, if "science" changes its mind (as it is prone to do; Scripture never changes), does he have to re-interpret his re-interpretations to fit the new scientific model?

 

As AiG scientists have observed so many times, if you marry your theology to secular science, you are likely to be widowed tomorrow.

 

Let's make it a point to stand on God's Word ALONE, the only thing that never changes!

Incorrect Information

Post-Script to the last post:

 

I was wrong in saying that they "did pretty well".  It was at the 250 word limit (so they aren't supposed to edit it), but the way they printed it, an entire sentence was removed from the words "Researchers" to the word "expect" at the end of the letter.  The last paragraph now read:

 

The researchers expect that if they understand life's beginnings on this planet, and know what simple life forms to look for elsewhere, they can prove we are all accidents.

 

Compare that to the post below.  Censorship!  Censorship!  Shame on you, Mr. Herald-Liberal . . . er . . . Leader.

 

---

 

Right now, something on our computer is messed up and I cannot add comments to my blog, I can only read them.  So, I decided to reply to one of the comments on my last post this way:

 

---

 

This comment was made by "Anonymous S".

 

You have to learn that repeating something again and again doesn't make it true.

 

That's exactly right.  Another thing that is true, however, is that if a false statement is repeated again and again, people start believing it even if it isn't true.  That's what has happened with evolution.  If someone hears "Science has disproven the Bible" enough times, people begin to believe it even though it is patently false.

 

I was just playing with Google and found this interesting abstract:

I won't reproduce the abstract in full because it is too long.  To view it in its entirety, point your browser to www.standonbible.blogspot.com/2005/06/letter-to-editor.html#comments.  Please read it before reading on in this post.

 

Sdic is a new gene that evolved recently in the lineage of Drosophila Melanogaster.

 

There's nothing wrong with a "new gene" as long as it doesn't mean "new information".  Evolution within as species is also viable, as long as it is the loss of information and not the gain thereof.  I read on:

 

It was formed from a duplication and fusion of the gene AnnX,

 

So there was nothing really amazing about the way it happened; a gene was accidentally copied twice and fused together, kinda like if your copier accidentally printed two copies on the same page, one forwards and one backwards, rather than just one copy on one page.  The information was already there.  Mutations like this happen all the time, but they never make the organism move up on the "evolutionary tree".

 

[This is a technical explanation of exactly how it happened].

 

I don't pretend to know what this means.  From what I see, it is just a play-by-play analysis of how the accident happened.

 

A novel protein is created lacking 100 residues at the amino end that contain sequence motifs essential for the function of cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chains.

 

It seems that through this accident, a squished-up protein is formed that doesn't have essential parts for the original function.  Again, compare to the copier analogy.  Let's see if they have a new function that not only makes the organism more likely to survive but also acts as a step up on the "process" of macroevolution.

 

Instead, the amino end is a hydrophobic region of 16 residues that resembles the amino end of axonemal dynein intermediate chains from other organisms.

 

I see.  When the gene was double-copied, it mixed the residual amino acids up so that they looked a little like a different kind of gene that already existed.  Of course, it wasn't perfectly the same, so it wouldn't have the function of the other organism.  Also, if it had the function of the other organism (a much harder thing), it would also have to have supplementary mutations all around it to allow the function to work correctly in that organism.  This looks like a handicap rather than an asset.

 

The downstream portion of Sdic features large deletions eliminating Cdic exons v2 and v3, as well as multiple frameshift deletions or insertions.

 

A "frameshift deletion or insertion" is just a shifting around and removing of pre-existing parts of the gene.  No new information.  Does it even have a new function?

 

The new protein becomes incorporated into the tail of the mature sperm and may function as an axonemal dynein intermediate chain.

 

Nope.  If we're lucky, it might be able to function as a partially handicapped version of the gene we already had.  Since this messes up the particular sperm, it would have less of a chance of surviving and passing on the defective gene.

 
I thought you'd like to see it since, you know, new genes are not suppose [sic] to be created.
S

 

I did like to see this fine example of a detrimental mutation.  Thanks for pointing it out!

 

The problem with macroevolution is this: In order for the organism to move up on the "evolutionary tree", it must have a change (like this one) in the genome.  This change, though, has to be both beneficial to the organism (so it can pass on the revised gene) AND it must help the species as a whole to move up toward a greater evolutionary goal.  Sickle-cell anemia, for instance, can be beneficial to the organism that has it, but is a loss of information that results in a 50% death rate in the society as a whole.  Since this "new gene" does neither of these things, it is no close to molecules-to-man evolution than anything else we've seen.

 

In Him,

 

David S. MacMillan III

Letter to the Editor

Today, the Lexington Herald-Leader published one of my myriad letters to the editor. It is as follows:

---

Blinded by Science

While scanning the June 10th edition of the Herald-Leader, I noticed a headline: "Scientists search for common-ancestor cell." I had to see what it was about. Biologists have now decided that all organisms, from President Bush to the bush in your yard, are descended from a single cell. This is convenient for them, as it only requires life to arise from the "primordial stew" once. Momentarily, let’s set aside the myriad of evolutionary difficulties. We won’t criticize the never-observed "process" of new information being added to the genome; necessary for Darwinism. We won’t even analyze the abject impossibility of that first fully operating cell "appearing" from non-life. If, as the article intimates, we are the "cousins of everything from whales to . . . pond scum," where does that place us? If, indeed, it is perfectly alright to squash a fly, who can say that it is ‘wrong’ to squash the life out of the elderly, the sick, or anyone else who we think is useless? The researchers stated that the efforts to understand this bug will help other branches of "science" as well. Branches like "evolution", the study of something that never happened, "genetics", biogenetic tampering, "medical science", cloning other human beings, and last of all, "finding primitive life on other planets". They expect if they understand life’s beginnings on this planet, and know what simple life forms to look for elsewhere, they can prove that we are all accidents. It’s amazing what lengths humankind will go to to disavow a Creator.

---

Besides the fact that they failed to put "III" after my name, and the fact that they changed "Creator" to "creator", they did pretty well considering that I only submitted the letter 3 days ago. -D3

I now pronounce you. . . .

Today, my mother and I went to the wedding of some close friends of ours. A few years ago at a different wedding, the groom at this wedding had completely ceram-wrapped the honeymoon vehicle. So a few of us decided that today was payback time.

Ingredients:

• 1 Nissan Maxima
• 27 rolls of cheap toilet paper
• 1 deck of Bicycle playing cards
• 14 plastic cups
• 20 feet of nylon string
• 1 stick of white shoe polish
• 12 very jovial guys

You can guess the results.

We took all their luggage from the backseat and placed it in the trunk, then wrote "We have your bags" on the window. The car was so stuffed with toilet paper that we had trouble closing the doors. The leftover tubes were put to good use too; they adorned the radio antenna and the windshield wipers.

Once we get the pictures that we took, I'll see if I can post them as well.

Happy Wedding Day, Dan & Andrea!

New look

Hey guys, Do you like the new look of the website? It took a lot of HTML mental gymnastics, but I finally was able to create the image in Adobe and paste it onto the website header. Questions? Comments?

Bible Bowl

Hey guys,

Today, my younger brother and sister are going to Cincinnati for a Bible Bowl tournament (Boy, I like links, don't I?).

My dad wanted me to make personalized name tags for each of the kids on the team. I used a trial edition of Adobe Photoshop that came with a book we purchased. It's a trial edition not only because it says so, but because it's a real trial to use it! You cannot save anything from the Photoshop application since it's the free version, so you have to Ctrl-PrintScreen (Copy screen contents onto the clipboard) in order to save your work.

Here is a sample of one of the nametags.

The res was much better, but HelloPicasa wouldn't upload anything bigger than what you see at the link. If you download the pic at the link the picture takes you to you should be able to see it with better resolution.

Professional looking?

The reason their team is called Winchester BLAST is because some of the team members are from Winchester, and BLAST is an acronym for the first names of the team.

Cya guys!

David

Summer has begun!

Okay, okay. I know that summer began quite a while ago, but for our family it really began yesterday. Consider:

• We got up at 10 AM.
• We had brunch at Waffle House.
• We went swimming.
• We had tennis lessons.
• AND WE NEVER DID ANY SCHOOLWORK!

That is the essence of summertime.

---

On a less light note, my 16th birthday bash is going to be held in two weeks. I will be turning 16 on the 12th of July , but at that time I will be attending TeenPact University in Georgia. TPU will be a lot of fun. I am helping out a little bit with some of the research for the Ivy League Track curriculum.

On that note, does anyone know of some information concerning what the Bible says about Mathematics? That's one of the things I have to find out for TPU.

I've been reading up on HTML, and I think I have found a way to make a clickable map!!!

For example:

Which state is Georgia, where I will be attending TPU?

(This is supposed to be a clickable map . . . why isn't it working???)

If the state you click sends you to the TeenPact website, you'll know you are correct!

Clickable maps are fun! Good luck!

In Him,

David S. MacMillan III

PS. If all you webwizards can help, click "View=>Source" to see the raw html. Please tell me where I went wrong.

Answers In Genesis

Hey everyone, You may have noticed the "Got Questions?" section at the sidebar of my blog. Our family visited the Creation Museum recently. It is absolutely superb! Not only is it being built true to the literal account in Genesis, but everything about it is so professionally done that it will simply floor you. When I was surfing the Answers In Genesis website, I came across a FAQ in the technical section: "Can I link to AiG?" Since I already linked to their website, I decided to take a look. They have a great way to link to them . . . JavaScript-powered displays that change every time a page is refreshed. To see the list of optional javascript displays, click here. Put one on your site! Not only does it spread the word about AiG, but it also makes for a great eye-catcher and e-conversation starter! Cya, guys! In Him, David

The Law : : Francis Bastiat

Another article that I wrote:

---

The Law

The Law was written by an economic theorist named Frederic Bastiat in the early nineteenth century. In his book, Bastiat analyzes the purpose, meaning, and progression of modern law. He explains why law is needed, the limits of law, and he also points out many laws in effect during his lifetime that actually promoted the very thing that the legal system was formulated to restrict.

The root of The Law lies in an explanation of justice. Bastiat tells his readers that, at best, law is but a necessary evil. Or, to put it more plainly, law is necessary because of evil. God has given men certain liberties: personal freedom, the right to own and use one’s own property, and the like. These liberties are justly used for the personal gain of whoever holds them.

However, all men are sinful, and wish to gain what is not their own through underhanded means. This, Bastiat intimates, is a violation of liberty. He calls this act "plunder". Plunder, of course, is a form of injustice. How can injustice be stopped? God has given individuals the right to use force when their liberties are violated through injustice. The law is simply "the collective organization of the individual right of lawful defense."

One of the most fundamental insights in The Law relates to our understanding of this definition. Strange as it may seem, law is not put into place to create justice per se. Rather, the law exists only to prevent injustice. When we understand this key principle, our understanding of legal systems is greatly increased.

Why is this so important? Many people view the government as an instrument for providing prosperity and well-being. But that is not its purpose! All the law exists for is to counter injustice and plunder. Whenever men try to twist the government into an instrument for equalizing and justifying humankind, this inevitably results in something Bastiat calls "legal plunder".

Legal plunder, like its counterpart illegal plunder, is the non-consensual removal of one man's property for the benefit of another. The difference is that in the latter case the person guilty of plunder is the criminal, but if a person resists the legal plunderer, they themselves become criminal. The law is a powerful thing that must not be turned to immoral ends.

In reading The Law, my thinking about government responsibilities and intervention was drastically changed. I can now see the rise of socialism in America. Many, if not most, of our governmental programs today are built around legal plunder. I firmly believe that our economy is doomed for destruction unless we abolish these abuses in our legal system.

David S. MacMillan III

Eschatology 101

I've decided to write a medium-sized dissertation introducing the reader to the subject of eschatology (the end times).

---

Welcome to Eschatology 101! This article will be presented in the most straightforward and simple manner possible. Before we start, though, I would like to clear up a common misconception that many people have concerning prophetic interpretation. Many of you have heard the "Golden Rule" of prophecy formulated by Dr. Tim Lahaye:

"Take all passages literally whenever possible unless the immediate context indicates otherwise."

or, in the words of Dr. David Reagan:

"If the plain sense makes sense, don't look for any other prophetic sense, lest you end up with nonsense."

Recently I was asked where we dispensationalists get this rule. I puzzled over it for a while, but finally came up with the answer:

Prophecy in the Old Testament concerning Christ's First Coming can almost always be linked to its fulfillment in the New Testament, usually because after the account of the fulfillment the author of the book gives you the prophecy.

If we look closely at the matched prophecies, we see that normally the fulfillment happens through the plain sense of the verse. For example, the boy Jesus returned from Egypt after the death of Herod. The Bible then says: "This was done that it might be fulfilled what was written in the prophets: 'Out of Egypt have I called My Son.' " Most likely the Pharisees before the time of Christ "spiritualized" this passage, saying "This just refers to the Exodus, where God called Israel out of Egypt." We know now that if the plain sense makes sense (like it does here), we shouldn't look for any other sense (like the misguided hypothetical Pharisees) lest we end up with nonsense.

One more thing before we begin: I will not refer to anyone as an authority aside to Scripture. I absolutely hate it when people say "Well, that particular passage was interpreted by St. Joe Smith in 1433 to mean. . . ." Frankly, I don't care what Saint so-and-so said about that passage. God's Word is clear enough to speak on its own.

That being done with, allow me to show you the basic passage that most people use to back up their eschatology.

This passage is called the "Seventy-Weeks" prophecy in Daniel 9:

While I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, "O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you skill to understand. "At the beginning of your supplications the command went out, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved; therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision:

Daniel has been praying in Babylon, and Gabriel has been sent to give him a vision of the end times.

"Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.

The Hebrew word for "weeks" and the word for "sevens" are the same. This was translated "weeks" here; it really means a set of seven somethings. We know from later in this chapter that it means 7 years (see a little bit lower down in the passage).

"Your people and your holy city" is addressed to Daniel. This, of course, means Israel and Jerusalem (which, incidentally, is what he was praying about).

So Israel has seventy seven-year-periods left, after which all the things Gabriel lists will happen: the Most High (Christ) will be anointed, all vision and prophecy will be finished, everlasting righteousness will be brought in, no more sins will be committed, etc. This is an indication of Christ's Second Return, right?

Here's a chart to illustrate what we've covered:

Start of the 70 wks.}----------------------------------{Christ reigns in glory

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem So it starts at the decree to Nehemiah to restore Jerusalem in about 440 BC. Knowing this, we can add to our chart:

*445 BC*}------------------------------------------{*End of the World*

Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.

The street and the wall obviously mean Jerusalem in this context (restore and build Jerusalem). Records show that, indeed, it took seven "weeks" from the command to restore Jerusalem in 445 to the finishing of construction in around 409 BC. Then it took 62 "weeks" before Messiah would come. This leaves one week from Messiah until the end of the world.

*445 BC*}--(7wks)--*409 BC*---(62wks)---*Messiah*-(1wk)-{*End of the Age* And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

So the sixty-two weeks measures until approx. 28 AD, when Christ was cut off but not for himself.

*445 BC*}------(A total of 69 wks)-------*28 AD*--(1wk)--{*End of the Age*

Here's where it gets tricky:

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood (explanation: a flood of armies), and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

We don't know anything yet about this elusive "prince who is to come", but we do know that in 70 AD, the Romans under Titus destroyed the city and the temple. Since then, Israel has been desolated by Gentiles.

But like I said, this is interesting. We know that the world did not end 7 years after Christ was "cut off". Look at the first part of this passage where it talks about the 70 weeks themselves: Seventy weeks have been determined for your people (Israel) and your holy city (Jerusalem).

Since God doesn't lie, we conjecture from this passage that the 70 weeks is only "counting off" during the God-ordained existence of the Israelites and their total occupation of Jerusalem. This would mean that the prophetic 70-week "clock" stopped ticking after the Jews rejected Messiah. What does this do to our chart?

*445 BC*}---69 weeks---*Messiah is cut off*-{ Blank space }-1wk-{*End of the Age*

Since the blank space started when the Jews were "broken off" and the Gentiles were "grafted in" (see Romans 11 for explanation), we call the blank space the Church Age.

**}-----------69 weeks----------**-{ Church Age }-1 week left-{**

So what is the deal with the last week? We know so far that:

• This week ushers in Christ's 2nd return.
• This week must have Israel holding Jerusalem.

The passage now tells us about this week. I'm including some of the last part of the passage to make it easier to understand.

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary . . . Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;

Wait a minute! Who is this "he" who is going to take up the last week? It can't be Christ, for it says later that "he" breaks his covenant. Reading carefully, we notice that it talked about a "prince who is to come". Apparently, "he" is this prince, and he will make a treaty with many nations for the last week.

But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

So we have this prince who makes a covenant of seven years with many nations, but breaks it in 3.5 years later (the middle of the week), bringing an end to the sacrifices in the temple and desecrating it. This desecration lasts 3.5 years, until the consummation of all things, when Christ returns.

So our chart now looks like this:

*}-69 weeks-{*Church Age}-*3.5 years-DESOLATION-3.5 years*-{Christ's Return

Look familiar? This is where we get the famous "Tim Lahaye style" charts depicting the end times. Seven years, huh?

Second Thessalonians 2 tells us more about this prince. When he is revealed in the last days, he "opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

Someone who is opposed to Christ is called Anti-Christ. John tells us that "You, children, have heard that THE ANTICHRIST is coming, and even now the spirit of antichrist is in the world".

2 Thessalonians tells us that this "lawless one" will be consumed by the breath of the Lord and the brightness of his Second Coming.

This, my friends, is where we get a chart like this one (click for larger picture):

Chart taken from Lamb&Lion Ministries.

---

I hope that Dr. Reagan doesn't mind! :-) If you read this, Dr. Reagan, I hope you aren't offended by my using the pic. If so, give me a call (Ben or Linda Rake will give you my number; we live in the same city) and I will take the picture off immediately and replace it with a link to your article.

This, my friends, is the basis of eschatology. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

What they're teaching in the schools

Hey everyone, I was commenting on one of Neo's posts (http://www.oldfashionedwhippersnapper.blogspot.com) and I came up with this little list of school subjects. I liked it so much when I was done with it that I decided to post it on my blog. Neo had posted about how the winner of the national geography bee was a homeschooler. In the comments, a public-schooled kid said that "Public schools only teach science, math, and history. That's why homeschoolers have an advantage. This was my reply: No, no, no. Public schools only teach: 1. Science? You are worthless slime that evolved over millions of years from non-life. This is proven scientific fact (LIE!), so it doesn't matter what you do. Morality doesn't matter either. Sure, go get pregnant. You can always slaughter the result of your immorality. March into a classroom in Columbine and shoot people. It's just natural selection sped up! 2. Math? We have to make the mathematics easier so that children won't ruin their self-esteem! Let's not hold the children back; they might get depressed. Let's hold everyone else back to their level and just say that they are advancing, ok? 3. History? It has always been the religious regimes that oppress people (like Hitler and Mussolini, right?). Religion is a crutch for the weak. The founding fathers were uneducated wimps . . . but still they didn't want God in schools! Yes, yes, they clearly stated in the First Declaration . . . er . . . Amendment . . . that there had to be complete separation of Church and State (like when John Jay said that it is the duty of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers?). In fact, if the government had anything to do with the church, you've got to restrict what the Church is doing. But remember that they are all uneducated boors that didn't know what they were talking about. In Him, David

Test Message

Hey guys,

 

This is a test message to see whether I can post text remotely.  Lots of times our computer can't access the internet but we can still email, so this way I can make posts easier.

 

In Him,

 

David