Two Sides to Every Story?

One of the first things that lawyers and paralegals are taught is to look at "both sides" of each and every story. It is too easy for us to concentrate on the first story we hear and miss important details later on that change the entire scope of the debate. But in fact, there are thousands of sides to every story, not just two. Everyone has their own interpretation of the facts, and everyone is at least partially convinced that they are correct. It is in the nature of man to draw his own conclusions about each and every controversy. What are the facts? In That Hideous Strength, C.S. Lewis says, "There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." This quote (which I found in Alex King's email signature) is really an eye-opener. I used to think about my faith in this manner: there is the Truth (God's Word), and then there is the Lie (everything else). Either people were on my side, or they were on the side of you-know-who.

But it is really not this way. Everyone has their own concept of truth. Witnessing to people just a few times a week will show you how variegated and often strange the beliefs of the "average American" really are. But the fact is that we know the truth. When we approach people, we have to remember that there is only one truth and only one Way! It isn't a case of Our side versus their side; we simply have to explain the Truth to them so that they will leave their particular falsehood behind.

There are an infinite number of sides until you know the Truth. Then, there is just One.

Jesus said, "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but through me." John 14:6

You know the truth. Get out there and share it! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

The Momma of All Tests

Yes, that is right. Tomorrow morning, early, I will be taking the Scholastic Aptitude Test (otherwise known as the S.A.T.) along with millions of other teenagers across America. My palms are sweaty, and I am starting to feel light-headed. . . . In Fall of 2005, I scored in the National Merit range for the PSAT. I won't know until September whether I actually am a National Merit Scholar, but my score did help me to guess how I will do on the SAT. Of course, the SAT has much more advanced math than the PSAT, so who knows how I will do this time. So, keep me in your prayers tomorrow. Pray that I my mind will be clear and that I will be able to recall everything I have ever learned about test-taking! On a lighter note. . . . As soon as I get a chance, I will be switching over from Blogger to the Momma-Of-All-BlogTools, WordPress! The new website will have a different theme and different layout, but it will be the same In Rejection of Mediocrity; with WordPress you can automatically import all your past posts and comments! Today I made a couple of headers for the new blog. I have uploaded them here so you guys can take a look and tell me what you think! Unfortunately none of the images uploaded full-size, but you can get a pretty good look at them with this size. So which one is better? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Design vs. Science?

Recently I have had quite a bit of discussion on the concept of design and science. Specifically, the concept of Intelligent Design. I have the RSS feed for Jamie Kiley's Blog and this morning I noticed the following headline: Design Is Not A "Science-Stopper". Naturally, I had to check it out. Jamie wrote an excellent article on why the concept of design in nature is not contrary to science. In fact, it is only in the area of origin science that most scientists frown on factoring in intelligence and design. An except from her article:

"Critics perceive that the idea of design is a "science-stopper" that puts an end to scientific investigation. The appeal to design, in other words, is an indicator that people are throwing in the towel and invoking God to account for whatever they don’t understand. This automatic explanation It is reminiscent of tribal cultures in which God is the end-all explanation for all natural phenomena including rain patterns, flooding, and any natural disasters. But ... that is hardly a fair characterization of design theory. In fact, the process of detecting design is an empirical process that is already a part of many sciences."

I encourage all my readers to go over and check it out! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Just a Quick Thought. . . .

I need to stop listening to NPR in the mornings. Think gas prices are bad? During the 1980s the average American paid 5% of their net income on gasoline. Today, we are paying 3.5% of our net income on gasoline. Cheer up! At this rate, they'll be giving gas away in 50 years! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Witnessing Tips from the Pros!

Today I called in to Way of the Master Radio on "Free for all Friday". Take a listen! If the QuickTime plugin below doesn't play it, try refreshing the page and allowing the ActiveX control to run. If that still doesn't work, you can click here. I am about halfway through the show, right after callers "Chris" and "Narvin", and right before "Ashley". Of course, I would recommend that you listen to the whole show, but if you want to just listen to me ... In Rejection of Mediocrity cannot be held responsible for any life-changing message that you miss. And yes, I did mention you guys. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

The Big Apple Clings to Traditional Values

New York is often though of as the center of liberalism and feminism. But there is one area in which this state is head and shoulders above the rest. This morning on Morning Edition of NPR news, the economics report focused on – divorce laws! New York was the only state that did not, as NPR put it, join the “no-fault revolution” of the 1970s. In most states a divorce can be had after a separation of 30-90 days if one of the parties alleges that the marriage is “irretrievably broken”. This came from a court decision around 1970 declaring that “irretrievable broken-ness” is all the grounds necessary for divorce. New York, however, still requires either showing of fault (adultery or cruelty) or a one-year separation before the divorce can occur. This is reflected in a substantially less divorce rate per capita in New York. Society is separated on which approach to the dissolution of marriage is best for our country. But change, be it for good or for bad, is on the horizon. Myriad groups in New York are pushing for a rewriting of divorce laws to allow for no-fault divorce, and one state judge has even declared that the current laws make a divorce cost too much and take too much time. And we know that when a judge decides something that is the end of the discussion. Proponents of change argue that no-fault divorce promotes good feelings between people and decreases costs due to money and time. In their eyes, the current laws only prolong the inevitable and stretch out an excruciating process, and they are based on a Judeo-Christian heritage that is outdated and anti-progress. Surprisingly enough, the National Organization for Women (NOW) is opposed to the change - but not necessarily for moral reasons. While an uncontested divorce may be made easier by no-fault laws, NOW says that the majority of divorces are not really “uncontested”. Since the husband generally controls the majority of the finances, in most states the wife has no bargaining power. If a husband has an affair and wants out of the marriage, he can generally leave his wife high and dry without a red cent – in a no-fault divorce state. However, if grounds for divorce are required, the wife is able to bring suit against the husband because she is innocent of wrongdoing. NOW explains that the New York divorce law allows her a bargaining chip to get the money that she needs to take care of the kids and recover from the dissolution of her marriage. The New York Women’s Bar Association disagrees with NOW. Of course, this makes sense; they are a bunch of fat-cat liberal feminist attorneys who stand to gain lots of business if no-fault divorce is adopted in New York. A spokesperson for the Women’s Bar Association said that the laws need to be changed. “Fault divorce had its heyday. But society changes and so should the laws.”

---

Society changes and so should the laws. Perhaps. If our laws are based on the “societal norm”, then moral standards are majority opinion. The only difference between anarchy and democracy is the heart of the people. God created the institution of marriage with a purpose. No-fault divorce has led to more broken homes, court battles, and division in our nation’s churches by forsaking God’s law. Unless moral standards and laws are based on the unchanging standards of the Ten Commandments, no society can survive. So, is fault-oriented divorce the answer? Is no-fault divorce the answer? Are either of these approaches to the dissolution of marriage biblical? You tell me. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Improbable versus Impossible: Is ID an argument from incredulity?

In a previous post, I presented a logical, factual argument for the existence of God. But one of my readers, Seanny McShawn, took issue with my syllogisms, saying that I was simply making an argument “from incredulity”. When someone tries to win an argument based on simple probabilities, this is called an “argument from incredulity.” This is a logical fallacy. In other words, the sheer unlikeliness of a scenario does not preclude its possibility and cannot be proof against it. But was I arguing from “incredulity”? Physicists estimate that in our universe there are 10⁸⁰ particles. Mathematicians say that the mathematical level of absolute impossibility is 1 chance in 10⁵⁰. However, the physical level of absolute impossibility is 1 chance in 10⁸⁰, and here’s why: On the basic level, probability is defined by the ‘particle’ example: finding a specially marked particle among 500,000 particles is beating odds of 1 in 500,000. In a universe that has 10⁸⁰ individual particles, the most improbable scenario is finding a specially marked particle in the entire universe. Due to the size of our universe, it is impossible to have a more improbable set of odds than 1 chance in 10⁸⁰. Anything that is more improbable than the most improbable is by all standards absolutely impossible. Mr. McShawn also took issue with the famous atheist Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculations that the probability of producing life by chance is 1 in 10^40,000. So, last night I ran a set of calculations that should clear up the problem. I found that Sir Hoyle’s calculations were, in fact, incorrect. Life is composed of proteins. Proteins are highly organized arrangements of amino acids. The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under certain finely tuned circumstances, amino acids can be produced. These amino acids were in the wrong balance to support life, but the experiment did show that intricate design is not absolutely necessary to create them. So let us assume, for the sake of argument, that in the primordial ooze billions of years ago enough amino acids were produced in the right concentration to provide the building blocks of life. Let us further posit that, through some volcanic or hydrologic freezing cycle, natural bond energies arranged themselves in such a way as to intricately fold millions of amino acids into the perfect proteins necessary for the next prebiotic step. Let us further assume that these proteins, through lowest energy bond formations, aligned themselves in such a way as to form a double helix of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. At the same time, an equal amount of RNA was produced to help copy the DNA in the absence of ribosomes. Nature magazine has done several extensive studies to investigate the absolutely simplest reproducing life form. According to this article, the simplest bacteria would require only a few basic functions: the ability to ingest raw materials, convert them into amino acids, synthesize the acids into proteins, and arrange the proteins to make a cell wall, more DNA, and more protein building cell mechanisms. To have these functions, Nature estimates that at minimum 200 genes would be required. According to Wikipedia, the average bacterial gene has around 1000 base pairs, for a total of 200,000 “bits” of information necessary to sustain life. Each “bit” has four possibilities: A, T, G, and C. These are the four proteins which comprise the “rungs” on the ladder of the DNA double helix. With 4 possible values for each of the 200,000 base pairs, the odds of getting the first base pair correct is 1 in 4. The odds of getting the first two base pairs correct is 1 in 4 x 4, or 1 in 16. The odds of getting 200,000 base pairs in the correct order are as follows: 1 chance in 1.0 x 10^120,412 Remember that it is physically impossible, in this universe, for random chance processes to defeat any odd greater than 1 in 10⁸⁰. Such being the case, the verdict for DNA arranging itself in a manner favorable to life is 10¹⁵⁰⁵ times the level of absolute physical impossibility. And the odds are not that much better if we reduce the gene requirement to only one gene. The chance of randomly selecting a single gene correctly is 1 in 6.5 x 10¹¹¹³. Even if all the genes had already been written somehow, the chance of getting them in the correct order (the only order in which reproduction is possible) is 1 in 1.6 x 10⁴⁶⁰. This is not an argument from incredulity. This is an argument from facts: cold, hard facts. Since any set of odds above 1 in 10⁸⁰ is absolutely impossible, random chance could not and did not produce life. Speaking of which, try listening to this song by Mike Reese. I am sure you will enjoy it. If you cannot play the clip from this page, you can try clicking here. Any questions? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Observing the Unobservable: Can Science Prove the Supernatural?

“To make God a hypothesis to be tested or a conclusion to an argument is to lose the experiential basis of religion” -Ian Barbour In modern times, the popular scientific community has, by and large, frowned upon the mixing of scientific inquiry and religious belief. If the supernatural exists, it must be substantiated on the basis of experience rather than science. Or so they say. Whether this assumption is valid depends mostly on the definition of “the supernatural”. It is impossible to tell whether I have broken the speed limit unless I know what the speed limit is. Supernatural: An entity or entities existing outside the realm of physical observation. Under that definition, it is plain that the supernatural realm cannot be quantified or equated through science. If it could be, it would cease to be supernatural – again, under that definition. But suppose that we use another definition: Supernatural: Physical occurrences or states of existence that cannot be reasonably explained through careful scientific observations. If you think about it, for hundreds of years the dark side of the moon fit the parameters of the supernatural under the first definition! We know it exists but we can’t see it. . . . We will use the second definition instead. So we move on to the next question: how can we prove the existence of the supernatural under the second definition? Or, more appropriately, can we? According to logic, the answer is yes: A. “Physical evidence inexplicable by randomly occurring natural processes” exists. B. All “Physical evidence that randomly occurring natural processes cannot reasonably explain” is all “the supernatural.” :. “The supernatural” exists. So if we can find “evidence that randomly occurring natural processes do not explain” (premise A), we have evidence for the supernatural! “The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.” -Robert R. Coveyou In order for an event to occur by chance, it must be mathematically possible. It is an accepted scientific maxim that the mathematical level of absolute impossibility is 1 chance in “10⁸⁰+1”. Not just a mathematical rarity. Anything above that number is an absolute impossibility. Why? Physicists estimate that there are 10⁸⁰ atoms in the entire universe. A chance of 1 in 10⁸⁰ is like picking a predetermined atom at random perfectly the first time. If you had 10 billion chances per second, it would still take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the assumed evolutionary age of the universe before you could get it right. The claim that anything less than 1 in 10⁸⁰ is like saying that 2+2=1. So what are the chances of life forming by random chance processes? The famous atheist Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the chances of the DNA of the simplest known living cell assembling by chance, with all the necessary ingredients already there, is (are you ready): 1 chance in 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ The standard evolutionary rebuttal for this is that these experiments assumed only one type of life was possible. With all the ways life might assemble, who knows how many different chances we might have! If there are an infinite number of ways life could be made up, then a number like 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ is really no trouble at all. But such arguments ignore everything we know about information. The simplest cells do just a few things: ingest raw material, build proteins out of the raw material, and build DNA and cell mechanisms out of the proteins. But no matter what form of life, DNA, or information is used, the level of information for a set of specific tasks remains the same. Remember, Hoyle’s calculations assumed all necessary ingredients were already there. The only thing lacking was information. 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ different characteristics of specific information. And do not bore me by claiming that a less complex life form exists that is easy to make, reproduce, and subsequently use to harness natural selection and mutation. If there is, then show me! If not, the origin of life is a phenomenon that clearly fits the definition of “Physical evidence inexplicable by randomly occurring natural processes”. And remember: A. “Physical evidence inexplicable by randomly occurring natural processes” exists. B. All “Physical evidence that randomly occurring natural processes cannot reasonably explain” is all “the supernatural.” :. “The supernatural” exists. God is real, folks. And we have all violated His laws. The question is: what are you going to do about it? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Reader Feedback: What Makes Christianity True?

Reader Feedback

All you've said is backed up [by] passages from the Christian Bible, right? That seems reasonable enough, it's important to have a basis for one's beliefs. I guess this fits into the first question, then - why should I trust in the Christian Bible, and not any other holy writing? All that you've said about death and judgement seems true from a Christian perspective, but there are other religions that say they're the path to eternal happiness....how do I know that Christianity is right and all the others are wrong? You make an excellent point about assuming things. That brings up another question in my mind: how do I know I should trust in something or someone for salvation? Different religions want to save me from different things, right? How do I know that the Christian salvation is the one I want? I'm sure you get questions like these all the time from stupid trolls and the like, but I am genuine in my curiosity. I really appreciate your previous reply, and I look forward to future discourse with you. Cordially, N. Nescio

In one of my earlier posts, I received a comment asking why Jesus is the only Way to God. I replied with a rather lengthy comment detailing the plan of salvation, and the original commenter replied back as quoted above. For ease of communication, I am continuing this "discourse" here.

All you've said is backed up [by] passages from the Christian Bible, right? That seems reasonable enough, it's important to have a basis for one's beleifs. I guess this fits into the first question, then - why should I trust in the Christian Bible, and not any other holy writing? All that you've said about death and judgement seems true from a Christian perspective, but there are other religions that say they're the path to eternal happiness....how do I know that Christianity is right and all the others are wrong?

You ask an excellent question, N. There are two ways that I can answer this. The first is an intellectual answer. I could reference the thousands of manuscripts supporting Scripture and proving that it is accurate to the original autographs. I could show you prophecies that foretold specific events in a specific culture hundreds of years before that culture even existed. I could quote numbers showing that the odds of just a fraction of such prophecies being fulfilled is millions of times greater than the mathematical "impossibility" ceiling by random chance standards. Christianity is not blind faith. However, just because I convince you with the intellect does not mean that you will really understand in your heart. I can intellectually believe that the speed limit is 70 mph on the interstate highway. But this doesn't always translate over to my driving habits. "All that you've said about death and judgement seems true from a Christian perspective. . . ." That is a fact. However, here is another fact: All that I've said also seems true from your perspective! Think about it. I would assume you have some kind of belief in God, so no doubt you realize that "God", whoever or whatever He/She/It might be, must be perfect. A deep-rooted preconception that all of us have of God is one of absolute perfection. As such, it makes perfect sense that He/She/It cannot tolerate sin. But what is sin? You don't even have to look at the Ten Commandments to have an understanding of sin. We all know that it is wrong to lie, to steal, to covet, and to lust. No one would contend that it is "OK" to hate other people or to blatantly dishonor our parents. Ask yourself this question: How could any perfect, holy God tolerate our sin? All the other "religions" out there evade the problem of sin in one way or another. But not one of them will hold up in a court of law! A Buddhist can't tell the judge: "I have been meditating for a long time since I shot that guy and robbed that bank, so I guess I'm OK. After all, I'm practically perfect NOW." A Hindu might be able to say that his evil acts don't really matter because life is an illusion anyway. The judge would probably look at him funny, then agree while condeming him to the electric chair. After all, the 2,000 volts of electricity are just a cosmic illusion anyway. The Bible says truthfully that God's Laws are written on every person's heart. Try as you may, you cannot ignore the problem of sin. You intrisically know that when you die, you will have to face judgement for your sin because you know that God is holy. And there is no way you can atone for your own sins without going to Hell. Christ's atonement is the only way you can be reconciled to God.

Different religions want to save me from different things, right? How do I know that the Christian salvation is the one I want?

Different religions may claim to save you from many different things. Some say that they will free you from guilt. Others simply want to make you a "better person" - which begs the question of why being a "better person" is a good thing. But all religions either ignore the problem of sin or try to combat it in some way. In the former case it is obvious that they are false. As I showed earlier, we all know that we are lying, theiving, blasphemous, murderous adulterers at heart. To ignore this vital problem is obvious folly. And no religious system has every devised a way of adequately dealing with sin. We know that God is a perfect Judge. The analogy of the courtroom holds true. No amount of good works, righteous deeds, or penance can erase the fact of our sin. Sin and judgement is a problem that we face regardless of what religion we believe in. Jesus affords the only way of escape.

I'm sure you get questions like these all the time from stupid trolls and the like, but I am genuine in my curiosity. I really appreciate your previous reply, and I look forward to future discourse with you. Cordially, N. Nescio

You aren't stupid. The Bible says that foolish people declare that God does not exist. But you are like a Berean, searching out the truth from a myriad of falsehoods. I commend you for your efforts and exhort you to examine yourself in the light of God's holiness. Just because the Bible says you have sinned doesn't mean that it's "just in the Bible". You know that you have fallen short of God's glory and are hopeless in your own efforts. Be brave! Acknowledge your intrinsic helplessness. You know that it is true regardless of what any holy book tells you. And if you can find some other way to evade the problem of sin, tell me about it! But I warn you that there is only one way to Heaven. You have to be rid of your inherent sin through Christ's blood. Think about the parachute example I gave in the last post. Face the facts! You're going to have to jump out of the plane regardless of what any holy book says. Get a parachute, man! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Urgent Prayer Request for Tomorrow

Tomorrow I will be giving my "testimony" at church. I love the church we attend, but I would like to see more evangelism. So I wrote up my testimony and I just want everyone to pray for me and for everyone who will hear this message tomorrow morning.

I’m real excited to be up here testifying today. I know that [our pastor] wants people to come up and not just tell how we came to Christ, but what God is doing right now in our lives. Recently, something happened to me that has really rekindled my walk with God in the area of soul-winning. I once heard a kid get up to give his “testimony” at a youth thing and he said something like this. “I don’t really have a testimony. I mean, I didn’t get saved from drugs or alcohol or anything like that. I guess I just grew up in a Christian home and always knew the Bible and the plan of salvation from as far back as I can remember, and I probably made a conscious decision for Christ when I was pretty young. So I don’t really have a testimony.” Well, that kid didn’t realize it, but he just gave his testimony. I am in about the same position that kid was in. I’ve been a “Christian” as long as I can remember; my earliest recollection of a conscious decision was probably when I was about 3. But as I have grown older, I have realized more and more the importance of sharing my faith. But we have a problem with current evangelistic thinking. People haven’t been raised knowing the Scriptures, so like Corinthians says “. . . the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Currently the church “fall away rate” is 80 percent. What I mean by that is that for every 100 decisions we get in churches – every 100 people who come to the altar and pray “the prayer” – 80 of them never come back. Our churches are producing backsliders at an alarming rate. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that this isn’t working! Who here has heard of Kirk Cameron? He is an actor who played in the TV show Growing Pains and in the Left Behind movies. He has a ministry on the Internet and the Radio based on witnessing the way Jesus did. Appropriately, his ministry is called “The Way Of The Master”. In Mark 10, we get a great look at how Jesus witnessed to people. A rich young ruler ran up to Jesus, got on his knees, and asked, “What must I do to inherit eternal life? First, take a look at what Jesus didn’t say: “You’ve got a God-shaped hole in your heart that only God can fill. Pretty soon here, I am going to go die on a cross. If you just say this prayer and REALLY mean it, you’ll go to heaven when you die.” Instead, Jesus asked the man, “Why do you call me good?” When Kirk Cameron is speaking, he says that this part made him do a double-take. You know, maybe Jesus could have used a friendship evangelism course. What Jesus did was correct this man’s understanding of what “good” is. He pointed him to God’s standard for goodness: the Ten Commandments. You see, these days we have a major problem. People think that they are basically good! But the Bible says that everyone has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. So what can we do to show them that they need to be converted? Psalm 19 tells us that “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” What is perfect and converts the soul? The LAW. Galatians says that the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The law doesn’t help us, it just leaves us helpless. We are saved by grace, but the law shows us that we are filthy, dirty, and in need of God’s cleansing. Now compare this to the current way that a lot of churches evangelize. Many huge mega-churches like to tell people things like this:

There is much more to life than the same old daily routine; but you have to think big. God wants to increase you! Believe God for promotion and He will take you to new heights.

I think maybe Paul should have listened to this kind of preaching. Think about it! Paul didn’t need to go through all those shipwrecks, imprisonments, scourgings, or stonings. He just should have “believed God” for an enjoyable life, right? That’s very nice. But it isn’t the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s the Gospel of Second Hesitations. Think about it like this. Let’s say that you are the flight attendant on a plane flying at 25,000 feet. You want to convince one of the passengers to put a parachute on. You can do this two ways. First, you can tell him to “Put this parachute on; it’s going to improve your flight. Your coffee will taste better, and your chair will be more ergonomic.” The guy will be pretty confused at first. How will a 50-pound parachute on his back improve his flight? But if you’re a really good salesperson, you might be able to sell it. He puts it on. He is pretty uncomfortable at first, but he remembers that you told him the parachute would “improve his flight”, so he consoles himself. Before long, the other passengers start laughing at him. He is getting more and more upset. He can’t even taste his coffee ‘cause he’s hunched over in his chair, and his back is starting to ache. Angrily, he rips the parachute off and slams it on the floor. As far as he’s concerned, it will be a long time before someone gets one of those things on his back again. But there is another approach that will be more effective. Try telling the man that in a few minutes he will be jumping 25,000 feet out of the plane, and that “this parachute” is his only hope of survival. He won’t notice the weight on his shoulders or the other passengers laughing at him. Rather, he will be grateful to you and to the parachute because he is imagining what would happen if he jumped without the parachute. Instead of telling people that Jesus will improve their flight, we should be telling them about the jump to come! If we do this, people will run to Jesus! The Bible tells us to FLEE from the wrath to come! God commands “all men to repent because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in wrath”. If a person comes to Jesus with the focus on peace joy and happiness without having understood that they are being saved from CERTAIN death ... they won’t find any peace! Peace and joy are legitimate fruits of salvation. But that should not be the drawing card for Jesus. Remember Psalm 19: The LAW of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. People have to understand that everyone has lied, stolen, and blasphemed, and this makes them guilty in God’s eyes regardless of how they see themselves. So the next time you want to witness to someone, ask them whether they think they are a good person. Then, show them to the Ten Commandments. Have you ever lied, stolen, or lusted? Ever had hatred in your heart? I must confess that I have. In God’s eyes we are ALL lying, thieving, murderous, adulterers in our heart. Now remember that we aren’t condemning anyone. Timothy says that everyone is condemned already; the Law just shows people that they really are helpless without Christ! So now, with every eye open, and no quiet music playing in the background, I would like to ask each and every one of you to examine yourselves. Philippians tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling – not work for our salvation, but examine ourselves to see whether we are really in the faith. God has appointed a day that He will judge the world in wrath. But rapists and murderers aren’t the only ones who will be judged. If you have ever lied, stolen, dishonored your parents, or failed to put God first at any time you are also guilty of breaking God’s laws. We all deserve Hell. But isn’t it amazing that God had a different plan! He sent His Son Jesus to die a horrific death on a bloodstained cross, to take our punishment on Himself. It is ONLY by trusting Christ for salvation from Hell that we can escape God’s wrath and have peace and joy through Him. Thank you so much.

Pray for me, guys. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

More Data in the Israel Debate

In my last post, I spoke about the incredibly candid comments made by Dan Gillerman, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, at the UN Security Council open forum Monday. However, I neglected to post the link where his excellent speech can be found. I encourage all my readers to take a few minutes and read this speech. It will open your eyes to the real situation in Israel ... not just what NPR decides to report. Any ideas on this speech? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

The New Axis of Terror

Breaking News

In an open forum discussion in the United Nations Security Council on April 17, Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, made several bold statements concerning Iran, Syria, and the Hamas-led Palestinian authority.

How did the newly elected officials of the Palestinian Authority respond to this morning’s abominable act? Sami Abu Zuhri, the official spokesperson for Hamas, did not bother to condemn the attack. Instead, he claimed the Palestinians “have every right to use all means to defend themselves and said that the attack was justified.” This reaction should not come as a surprise – only two weeks ago the same individual stated that the Hamas movement is committed to all forms of “resistance,” including suicide bombings. Today’s horrific act of terrorism, as well the ones that preceded it, are the direct result of the new axis of terror, which I have previously described to you. An axis comprised of Member States in this organization, namely Iran and Syria, and the terrorist organizations they have been harboring, nurturing, financing and supporting, namely Hamas and Hizbullah. ... In view of all these, Mr. President and distinguished Members of the Council, I ask each and every one of you, what would you do? Would you just sit still and wait to bury your children? Would you ignore this harsh reality and just act as if its business as usual? Or would you try and stop this horror and eliminate this danger? A danger I must add, not just to Israel but also to the whole free world and to civilization as we know it, as this axis of evil and terror sows the seeds of the first world war of the 21 st century.

Way to go, Mr. Gillerman! Finally someone has told it the way it is! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

When Democracy is Anarchy. . . .

Yesterday I was perusing the Lexington Herald-Liberal when I noticed an interesting opinion letter. I liked the letter so much that I am reproducing it here:

---

DANGEROUS TO CONFUSE LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY The Bush administration seems to think democracy is the answer to the world's problems. I beg to differ with that oversimplistic idea. Our democratic republic has worked only because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, which makes every person and organization equal under the law. If today's lawmakers were writing the Constitution, some of those rights would be left out. Our president, it seems, would like to see the 14th Amendment excluded. The God-fearing majority of citizens and leaders in the late 1700s were a special breed. They came from countries where certain religious sects were persecuted, and they saw this same sectarianism spreading in America. The founders felt very strongly about freedom of thought, speech and religious choice, and several insisted that a Bill of Rights, with protections to citizens from government interference or coercion, be added to the Constitution immediately. In Islamic countries, Muslims are taught that Islam should be the law of the land and established by government edict. To most Muslims, freedom of religious choice is not an option. So what kind of democracy will such people create? A wise man once said that if the American people became evil, this democratic republic would become the worst form of government. Liberty and democracy are two different things. Without an understanding of what liberty really is, how can a people form a government that secures it? Douglas Roy Lexington

---

Douglas Roy is a conservative Christian Republican who tends to disagree with many of Bush's policies. His personal website is www.DougRoy.us. While I do not agree with all of his views, he was right on in this letter. I would put it this way: The difference between democracy and anarchy is the people, not the form of government. Our government is a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. But the same principle Mr. Roy was advocating still holds true. The mindset of the people controls whether government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" will work. Opinions, anyone? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Jesus: Never Convicted

---

"The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." (

"Now I have told you." The question is: What are you going to do about it? Just a quick note. If you read the account of Christ's arrest, trial, and execution, you will find that He was never actually criminally convicted. The Sanhedrin used false witnesses, but they did not suffice. When the High Priest asked Jesus if he was God, our Lord replied: "You say so." At this confession, the Sanhedrin decided He was guilty of blasphemy (which in this case was punishment for a person's status rather than a person's deeds; an instant mistrial) and appealed the decision to the Roman Courts! And in the appeal, they changed the charge from blasphemy to treason (another mistrial)! Pilate found Him not guilty and sent Him to Herod. Even King Herod, the evil man who Christ had unequivocally pronounced to be an "old fox", found the Savior not guilty. He was sent back to Pilate and the Procurator said "I find no reason to condemn this man." Then, in the rage of the people, Pilate released Barrabbas the bandit and sent Jesus to Golgotha to be crucified without any conviction. Christ died for a crime He was never convicted of. We deserve to die for the sins we commit every day. Have you ever lied, cheated, stolen, or lusted in your heart? Ever hated anyone? The Bible says that God sees all of us as lying, thieving, adulterous, murderous criminals. Christ died so you would not have to. Repent and Trust in Him! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Marshall University and Geophysics: there IS a connection this time!

Okay. Marshall University is extremely - cool. Yeah. As most of my readers know, I traveled a few hours to Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia today for a visit. I had arranged to meet with several different professors in majors I am considering and with the leaders of several campus ministries (Campus Crusade for Christ and the MU Young Republicans, to be exact). After getting up at 5 hours after midnight and showering in a record 30 minutes (just kidding, it only took me 28 minutes), Dad let me drive all the way there. In his beautiful Toyota Avalon - in driving rain - lots of fun. I am seriously considering two majors: Journalism and Physics. I am thinking about journalism for obvious reasons - why do you think I have a blog, anyway? I really enjoy applied physics, however, so I am thinking about getting a major in one and a minor in the other - or maybe even a double major. My first visit was with the Assistant Dean of the Marshall School of Journalism. . . . The first thing I actually did was sit in on a Journalism 101 class for non-majors. The professor was pretty cool, but it was just a little bit like a stand-up comedy show with a random factoid thrown in for good measure. Did you know that the FCC used to be the FRC, Federal Radio commission? Me neither. But hey. It is a 101 course for non-majors. They have to make it interesting enough so that more students will change over to journalism. Anyone can understand that. From what I have heard, the more advanced journalism courses at Marshall are extremely rigorous and hands-on. If I went with a Journalism major I would definitely learn a lot. Of course, I would also have access to the journalism facilities. Have you ever seen a prettier sight than 20 or so iMacs lined up in a classroom, ready to be used for graphics design or instant web publishing? Well, I have too. But this was rather close. The whole facility is excellent. I met with one of the leaders of the CCC ministry there at Marshall for lunch. From what I understand, the Christian organizations on campus are very active in the hands-on evangelism that I love. I also met with Caleb Gibson, the president of the Young Republicans. We discussed the political clime on the campus as well as the different political opportunities in West Virginia. I know one thing for certain: if I go to Marshall I won't have any trouble staying busy! Then I got into the really good stuff. I met with the professor who directs the physics department and we chatted about majors, minors, etc. for a while. Then I was able to sit in on a Physics 101 for non-majors class. Much better. My dad, who has a Master's degree in analytical chemistry, said that he learned stuff he never understood before - probably because the professor was not just cool - he was good. The subject of the class was mainly magnetism. How does an electrical dynamo work? Why? How can you tell the difference between a magnet and a non-magnet if they both look exactly the same? Why can you tell? After a while, the professor started talking about Earth's magnetic field - a point at which Dad and I really sat up and listened hard. This is a huge subject of controversy in the creation/evolution field - mostly because it is a large point of disagreement between evolutionists and Biblical creationists. Evolutionists believe that our planet's magnetic field reversed every few hundred thousand years or so - creationists believe that all the reversals happened within a few months during the Flood. So when the professor said, "The earth's magnetic field has reversed X number of times in the past 200 million years", I felt a gigantic urge to put on an Australian accent and ask, "Were you there?" But it wasn't his fault and I wanted to know more about this, so instead I just asked: "How do scientists measure how much time passed between each reversal?" I knew that there was an evolutionary/uniformitarian assumption somewhere down the line. Sure enough, he explained that as hot magma seeps out of the cracks in the earth's continental plates, it travels in large swathes in the direction of the prevailing magnetic current. We see reversals of direction, which logically indicate reversals of the magnetic field. The assumption was that the rate of "seepage" has always been constant. If we make this assumption, the dates they come up with make sense. But during the Flood, the "fountains of the deep" were broken up, resulting in enormous tectonic activity which would have reversed the magnetic field of the earth and accelerated the escape of magma. I asked the professor later whether an increase in magma seepage speed and an increase in reversal rate would look the same. He thought for a moment, then agreed that we wouldn't really be able to tell the difference. I will post a bit more on Marshall later if I get a chance. Remember to always look for the assumptions before passing judgment - it helps! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Paper Waffles and Marshall University: Is there a connection?

Paper waffles, eh? This is a portion of the top of a box of instant waffles that our family ate a few weeks ago. I saved the top because of the obvious irony. Many times statements are made that can almost have a double meaning. I was perusing some of my past articles, and I found that in many cases, the satire that I wove into the arguments could very well be a turn-off for anyone who did not already agree with me. This is not what I would have intended to do. So, I humbly beg pardon for any place I may have offended my readers who do not share my views. And the waffles really did taste like 100% recycled paperboard. Tomorrow, I will be traveling to Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia. I have been looking closely at this college for quite some time due to the substantial scholarships that they offer. Lord willing, I will post about my trip upon my return. And no, there is no real connection. I just said that to get people's attention (I know, I am pretty mean. Oh, well. After all, I didn't say that there was a connection. . . .). In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Get Christ Out of Schools!

Breaking News Today, the Kentucky State Board of Education voted a compromise on the issue of dates in public school textbooks. No, dinner-and-a-movie. Historical dates. The year A.D. 2006. In the eighth century after Christ, people began designating the years using the Latin term Anno Domini, which literally means the year of our Lord. This was in reference to the reckoned year of Jesus' birth and the widespread impact that Christianity had history and culture. Years before Christ are indicated by "B.C.", "Before Christ." The terms "A.D." and "B.C." are used around the world as the international and scientific standard for designating years. The United Nations even uses this designation. More recently, it has become politically correct to mask the Christian connotations of our world's dating system by using the letters "C.E.", or "Common Era", and "B.C.E.", or "Before the Common Era". Such usage has become common in our nation's colleges and museums. So it was not long before propositions began to crop up to change the "AD/BC" designation to "CE/BCE". Just a few hours ago, the Board of Education decided to keep the traditional method, but tack on the newer system as a subset. In Kentucky, the year is now "A.D./C.E. 2006." Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, was heartily opposed to the whole idea:

"Why do you need to change the dating system we've used for 2000 years unless you have some sort of political agenda?"

He pointed out that this is one of the last meetings of the Board before new, more conservative members appointed by Governor Fletcher will join. Lisa Gross, the spokesperson for the Board, denied any such connection. She said that the change was necessary to keep up with the standards set by colleges across America. Susan Griffin, of the National Council for Student Studies, echoed her view.

"I think that's a very legitimate reason to do it -- you have to recognize what's going on in colleges and universities so your students don't look like they're out of touch."

It is always for the children, now isn't it? In Him, David S. MacMillan III Quotes for this article were taken from the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"Random" Mutations: Designed?

In the mid-70's, Japanese scientists discovered a bacteria that had suddenly acquired the ability to digest nylon waste. Further study revealed that this new ability was the result of a specific mutation in the genetic code. Evolutionists were quick to point out that this mutation resulted in new information being added to the DNA of the bacteria, substantiating their claim that mutations coupled with natural selection had been the fuel behind the origin of species. The secular scientific crowd filed it away in their box of "infallible evidences" to use whenever a pesky creationist exposed them. The mutation that had occurred was called a "frameshift" mutation. Under a specific type of stress, the copying system of the DNA had gotten skewed. An entire sequence of DNA moved one whole step over, changing the structure and re-building the protein it was intended to code for. The rebuilt protein was able to digest nylon waste, an ability that had never been observed before. So is this really proof of beneficial mutations that add to the genetic code and push an organism up on the Darwinian ladder? Mutations are generally random. They never happen the same way twice. But scientists studying this particular microbe found that whenever they subjected it to environmental stress, it somehow mutated the same exact way. Whenever this microbe had a lack of resources that messed up its copying routine, the DNA shifted over, changing the protein type and giving the organism new abilities! Obviously this is not a random mutation. Under close examination, it becomes apparent that the DNA is "set up" so that it can "reveal" new stretches of DNA under stress. It is as if the "G" encyclopedia, when read backwards, doubled as the "M" encyclopedia. This is not the time to praise the system that reads the encyclopedia backwards for its "amazing ability" to "change the information". No, the "M" encyclopedia already existed, written "between the lines" of the "G" encyclopedia. What the evolutionists thought would help them actually hurts them. They have lost their amazing "random mutation" that increases the information, and now they have to explain how a DNA code evolved that had hidden information in it ready to be released when certain mechanisms kick into action.

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. . . ." (Romans 1:24)

What will it take before sinful man will acknowledge the power of God? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Life Is Fragile - What are you doing?

Last night, a terrific brace of thunderstorms swept through our area, bringing with them a few tornados and funnel clouds. The twig behind this text was taken from a tree that used to crest a huge hill at a park near our home. Today this magnificient tree was lying flat across the hill, crushed against the ground. Life is fragile. 150,000 people will die today. Who have you shared your faith with today? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

A "Missing Link" Is Found - And Lost

On April 6, the New York Times published an article on the latest "Missing Link": a half-fish/half-reptile that they say "bridges the gap" between ancient fish and early reptiles. The article was very positive about the strength of the study:

"With the discovery of fossils of the Tiktaalik, or 'large shallow water fish,' scientists have found a missing connection between fishes and walking land creatures."

The Cincinnati Enquirer boldly proclaimed on April 7 that "Those who argue against evolution often say there is no fossil record of one kind of creature evolving into another. Tiktaalik bridges just such a gap." Many scientists were quick to trumpet the defeat of Biblical creationism, as evidenced by this quote from the Times article:

"Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists,"

Or so they say. Times also had a very encouraging image (click to enlarge below) on their website which showed Tiktaalik prominently displayed as "The Missing Link" heaving itself up onto land between an Eusthenopteron fish and a Icthyostega reptile, reinforced by dates from who-knows-where. Below this it showed a diagram of the variegated "limb" bones in the three creatures. The first obvious fallacy comes out in the artistic license used to depict the soft tissue around the three "limbs". The first is smooth, but the second, labeled "Transitional footlike structure" is almost serrated at the end    perhaps depicting the assumed "grip" that this creature was "developing"? At close examination, the "Link" status of this creature totally falls apart. The supposed "footlike" structure is not directly attached to the skeletal system of Tiktaalik    which means that it couldn't possibly have used these bones on land. The bones were embedded in the muscle, not in joints attached to the backbone. Imagine trying to walk around if your femur was six inches away from your hip. The scientists at the University of Chicago who discovered this posit that perhaps Tiktaalik "used its fin/feet to paw along the bottoms of shallow streams." Perhaps. But the Coelacanth, which until recent times was also considered a similar missing link, was found in a fish market in Japan just a few years ago. By observing it in its natural habitat, scientists have discovered that it can't "paw along the bottoms of shallow streams" because it has no weight-bearing ability. Even if Tiktaalik had real limbs attached to its torso, it still would be unable to breathe above water. The lungs operate on an entirely different principle than gills    which are not as primitive as we are lead to believe. In the Enquirer article, Tiktaalik was called "the" missing link in the line between land and sea. But if evolution was true, we should find an unbroken path between all "transitions". And we have no transitional form "between land and sea" now, so how can this be "the" missing link? Shouldn't we find hundreds? Unfortunately for the evolutionists, all the missing links are still missing. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Christ On Ice? Part II

In my last post, What It Takes To Put Christ On Ice, I related the story of a study that explained how Jesus "may have" walked on an ice floe rather than on water like God's Word says. Then, I opened up for comments on what my readers thought about the whole thing. It was not until David Ketter left his two cents or three cents that anyone really hit the nail on the head: "In order to make the case, let's refer to the original story, shown in John 6:16-21. . . ." This is where the crux of the issue lies. When I first heard this story, my initial response was purely from a scientific basis: If Galilee isn't cold enough now, why are they saying it was cold enough then? But I soon realized that this is not the correct approach. Instead of looking to fallible science for the answers, we must look to God's Word: the only thing that never fails. David K. did such a good job with this that I am reposting his comment in its entirety:

In order to make the case, let's refer to the original story, shown in John 6:16-21:

When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were frightened. But he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid."

Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.

In this passage alone, we see the key evidence aqainst the ice-theory: "The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing." Also, we can see that this ice is affected, in part, by depth. According to John 6, "they had rowed about three or four miles [out]."

So, really, it's futile to believe this idea. A more detailed account (of the same event) in Matthew 15, states:

And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind,[d] he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me." Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Here, again, we have more evidence against it. Peter steps out (in faith) and seeing the wind (again, no calm water), he loses his faith and begins to sink. Jesus, coming to the same spot, pulls him up onto the surface of the water once more and helps him to the boat. The point in this? In order for the ice-theory to work, Jesus would have to be quite a manipulator of ice to move it around like that. But consider the evidence:

1) The water was rough

2) The wind was raging

3) The weather was warm enough for crowds to spend the day by him (read the first portions of Matthew 15 and John 6 and you'll find Jesus had been teaching the whole day prior).

4) Jesus was walking 3 or 4 miles out on the Sea of Galilee.

5) Peter was sinking.

Biblically speaking (and that's not taking the science into account because THAT is not my area of expertise), there is no grounding for this ice-theory in the Christian life.

Attaboy, DJ! Tomorrow (Lord willing) I will be posting on a Missing Link that has captivated the evolutionary crowd     stay tuned. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

What It Takes to Put Christ On Ice

The article started off strong.

"The New Testament story describes Jesus walking on water in the Sea of Galilee but according to a study led by Florida State University Professor of Oceanography Doron Nof, it's more likely that he walked on an isolated patch of floating ice."

In an effort to dispel the ancient "myth" of the walking-on-water account, a team of scientists has done research on what is known as "springs ice". When a salty spring flows into a freshwater lake, the heavier saltwater sinks to the bottom, creating a temperature imbalance that can lead to ice formation above the saltwater. This only occurs in calm water when the air temperature is at or near freezing. These scientists have decided that since Jesus "couldn't" have really been walking on water, he must have been walking on ice that happened to form just at the right time for this to occur. They say that the chances of this happening today in the Sea of Galilee are about "once in 10,000 years" but that the odds "might" have been higher around two thousand years ago during a "prevailing climate" - whatever that means. I will post my opinion on this startling new piece of "evidence" soon. For now, I am asking my readers to contribute their views via comment. Perhaps we can get some controversy here! To see the original article, go to www.physorg.com. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Self Esteem Is Linked to WHAT?

The doctrine of Self Esteem has been an integral part of our schools for a long, long, time. But a study by Scientific American has found that this ideal can actually lower grades and lead to "socially unacceptable behavior", i.e. bullying, drugs, and promiscuity. Some of the most famous programs to build self esteem originated in California in the early 1980s. Of course, we know that self esteem comes from psychology, psychology from Freud, and Freud was an atheist. But that is besides the point. After all, they finally found a doctrine they could teach in school and deny that it is religion. Never mind that the Supreme Court has defined atheism as its own religion. The rationale behind the push for self-esteem programs is that people are basically good, but that since they do not "believe in themselves", from thence stems all evil in society. Or that is the way the argument goes. In a 1989 publication called The Social Importance of Self-Esteem, the statement was made that

". . . many, if not most, of the major problems plaguing society have roots in the low self-esteem of many of the people who make up society."

But the first scientific problem with this comes from the fact that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." A study was done in 1995 showed that there is no correlation between a person's "self-esteem" and how attractive or intelligent the person actually is. Artificial attempts to bolster someone's positive thoughts about themselves leads to dissatisfaction with other people and feelings of superiority. After all, if "social value" is not based on physical or mental characteristics, I can pass judgment on the value of anyone without any rationale. Another study done by Scientific American found that self-esteem bolsters a person's opportunity in life only so far as those around them prefer an arrogant person to an insecure person. The lesser of two evils. Researchers at the University of Kentucky found 'way back in 1987 that having high "self-esteem" hurts one's chances to successfully resolve disputes. Because a person with high "self-esteem" feels that he or she is always right, they will be more prone to sever a relationship than admit that they are wrong. It has been found that teens who have a high level of "self-esteem" as measured by current standards are actually more likely to engage in sexual promiscuity and drugs because they feel they are so "good" that nothing can touch them. Contrary to what we have been told, bullies in school and violent adults do not generally suffer from insecurity. They usually have high "self-esteem" and as a result have a predisposition to look down on everyone else because they have been told repeatedly how "good" they are. The message of humanistic self-esteem programs is that we are all basically good, so we just need to accept ourselves and this will help us accept others. But that is not what God's Word says.

"Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:3-11)

My favorite Christian comedian, Brad Stine, put it this way:

The first commandment God Almighty told man was: You must put Me first! You must put Me first! Then, when the Creator of matter tells you YOU matter, then you have purpose and then you have self-esteem!

In Him, David S. MacMillan III

No Other Name By Which We Must Be Saved

Lately I have been speaking with a few people who lean toward the idea that anyone can go to Heaven as long as they are sincere in their beliefs and follow their religion with perseverance. If you are a "good Muslim" or a "good Hindu" or a "good Mormon", you might make it as long as you accept that Jesus was a Prophet. So, we should never tell people that their belief system is wrong or that they are going to Hell, but at the most we can tell them "Jesus loves you!" Today I compiled a list of Scriptures that speak directly on this issue and so I decided to post them here. Generally God's Word can speak for Itself:

Ephesians 4:14-15 “Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.” Matthew 7:20-21 “Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” 1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 “Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” Matthew 7:15 “Do not judge or you too will be judged. . . . Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but an evil tree bears evil fruit. 1 Timothy 4:1,2 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 1 John 2:22 “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” Isaiah 9:6 “[Christ’s] name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Revelation 21:8 “But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.” Psalm 32:1 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.” Hebrews 9:22 “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” 1 Peter 3:18 “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.” Hebrews 9:11-15 “When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! Hebrews 10:19-22 “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.” John 3:3,14,15 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ … As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

Which side are you on?

In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Regenerate Our Culture: Issue 2

Creation vs. Evolution

This is the theme of the second issue of Regenerate Our Culture. Agent Tim, Karen Kovaka, Jason Braun, and myself have joined together to write four articles applying the creation/evolution controversy to our culture and our world today. This issue also premiers the official podcast of ROC: Square Talk Radio! SquareTalk is a podcast run by Agent Tim Sweetman and several other top bloggers. This is the 12^th show, but the first show that is linked together with Regenerate Our Culture. And its subject is also Creation and Evolution! The special guest is: Me! That's right, Tim Sweetman, Travis from Blogging Boy Scout, and I spent thirty minutes discussing evolution, creation, and God's Word. Check it out!. Back at ROC, I have an article that will enable to you refute any evolutionary "fact". Tim Sweetman has an excellent article on Social Darwinism and the implications of eugenics today. An essential message. So head on over to Regenerate Our Culture and take a look! In Him, David S. MacMillan III