What had happen' was.....

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer

Signature in the Cell is an awesome book. One of the things I like about the book is how Stephen C. Meyer explains how DNA works as digital code and gives a lot of background about information theory as well as a history of how the DNA was discovered and studied! There is an accompanying website that includes links to debates in which Dr. Meyer defends his book and research. The site also includes a really nice video showing how DNA is read and used by cells in Animation. I love this stuff! It really is a lot like how computers encode information. Check out the website.

Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Jailed Akron Mom, Kelley Williams-Bolar Released By Judge Patricia Cosgrove

Finally, some good news on a news story that has not been in mainstream news.

Kelley Williams-Bolar was released from the Summit County Jail Wednesday morning after serving all but one day of a 10-day jail sentence for improperly enrolling her children in Copley-Fairlawn schools.

A jail official confirmed Williams-Bolar was released at about 10 a.m.

Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove gave Williams-Bolar credit for one day of time served when she was arrested and jailed on multiple felony charges in November 2009, court records show.

On Jan. 18, Williams-Bolar was sentenced to 10 days in jail after a jury convicted her of two felony counts of tampering with records.

The offenses involved several instances of signed or sworn school registration forms, applications for reduced or free school lunches and other official documents authorized by Williams-Bolar when she enrolled her two girls in Copley-Fairlawn schools in August 2006.

In other developments in the case, Akron City Council President Marco Sommerville said he planned to meet with Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh at 2 p.m. Wednesday to discuss the issue of why the case could not have been resolved without the filing of felony charges.

Williams-Bolar, a single mother who was going to college and working as a teaching assistant at Buchtel High School, had no previous record.

Within hours of the sentencing hearing, Cosgrove spoke out after becoming the target of public outcry over the case, which threatens the mother's job and her hopes to become a school teacher.

Cosgrove said the prosecutor's office refused to consider reducing the charges to misdemeanors during numerous closed-door talks to resolve the case outside of court. (source)

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Jailed Akron Mom, Kelley Williams-Bolar Released By Judge Patricia Cosgrove

FacePalm of the Day #51 -Debunking Christianity: Science Based Explanations vs. Faith Based Explanations

John Loftus recently responded a really great question about natural explanations vs "Faith-based" explanations. As usual, his response leads to multiple Facepalms. My comments will be in italics. First here is the quote Loftus is referring to in his comments.

I'm quite aware of the differences between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I have not misinterpreted John's view of science. Rather, I have questioned why he would state that science assumes natural explanations for all phenomena on the one hand, then ask believers to corroborate supernatural explanations through science. -cl

I must admit this is a great question. The objection is that if I demand that supernatural explanations must abide by the rules of science which only admit natural explanations, then supernatural explanations by definition don't have a chance. This is definitely a quandary of sorts. Let me respond.

It's nice to see John Loftus responding to an objection that I think his position must logically be able to answer. Unfortunately, it goes down quickly from here.

We should note first of all that science qua science must look for natural explanations because that's what science does. It cannot do otherwise lest it be subservient to different kinds of supernatural explanations. If that's the case then there would be separate scientific methods resulting in a Mormon science, a Muslim science, a Christian science and so forth. Alvin Plantinga actually recommends that there should be a distinctively Christian science, something which Michael Martin strongly objects to.

Okay so far?

Not by a long shot. In no way does allowing supernatural explanations mean subservience to different kinds of supernatural explanations nor scientific methods resulting in different sciences. FacePalm number 1. If this was true then that would lead to thinking that there are multiple gods. If so then Judaism, Islam, and Christianity would all be ruled out. Mormonism allows for multiple gods so they'd still be okay. What is worse is that they conflict with one another in fundamental ways. You can't starts from either place and consistently arrive to the same conclusions. Observing the natural world shows that this doesn't make sense. Science is not possible without presupposing that the natural world is understandable, repeatable, and predictable. If you had to view the world from conflicting religious points of view science would not possible.

Granted there are probably a lot of things the sciences cannot explain, from the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and consciousness (or at least, they have difficulties in doing so). That's where there is room for faith. Until such time as the sciences can explain everything believers can still have faith. But that doesn't seem within reach, and may never happen, so there will always be room for faith.

I still don't like Loftus' definition of faith. Biblical faith is built on the trust from evidence of past experience and relationship with God. It is not leaping in the dark or wishful thinking in the absence or contradiction of verifiable facts. Facepalm #2.

That's the way it has to be. A believer should ask for no more than this. The sciences must look for natural explanations. There is no other alternative.

The way Loftus has defined faith forces these conclusions. I ask for a more accurate definition of faith.

So, am I being hypocritical or inconsistent when I demand that believers should corroborate supernatural explanations through the sciences?

No, for a few good reasons.

Yes it is hypocritical but given the way Loftus defines faith it is consistent. However any argument starting with erroneous presuppositions is always going to be wrong - especially if is consistent.

1) Theistic explanations have failed miserably in every generation as science has shown these explanations unnecessary. It's this overwhelming success that leads me to think science offers much better explanations than theistic ones. So it's based on the success of science that I make my claim. I have been persuaded that supernatural explanations are a dime a dozen and debunked so many times before that I have no reason to think any additional moving of the goal posts will succeed. For once science explains something then theists move the goal posts to a different problem because science opens up new questions to be solved as it solves previous ones. So in one sense I have concluded something from science and then turned around and demanded that supernatural explanations cannot succeed by demanding they adhere to the standards of science. Theists not already persuaded as I am, will claim I'm hypocritical or inconsistent because they do not already think as I do about the sciences. In fact, believers regularly denigrate science to believe, and I find that appalling given it's success rate.

So believers will not appreciate my demand until they appreciate what the sciences do for us. I'm merely saying that science works. Belief does not, which is my next point.

Science is trial and error. It comes up with multiple wrong answers before it comes up with good ones that explain reality. Nothing wrong with that. I don't know of a single theistic explanation for the physical world that is taught in the Bible that has been disproved in science. People who make such assertions seem to conflate what religious people have said and done in God's name with what God has really said. The truth is that they are not always the same thing. The church said that Galileo was wrong and that the sun went around the earth. The Bible does not say that. Some religious people argued that the earth was flat, the Bible doesn't. Some religious folks believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old but the Bible does not. Some people have made such beliefs a test of orthodoxy and the Bible does not.

2) What else is there but the sciences? Faith-based reasoning is best defined as "belief in search of data." There are too many different and contradictory religious claims being made. How can we settle these disputes? We cannot do so with faith-based reasoning because it only confirms what was believed in the first place. Such a method (if we can call it that) fails miserably time and again. This is best shown faulty when we see that it cannot help us decide between these different faith claims. Furthermore, I find it inconsistent and hypocritical for believers to use the sciences to debunk other religious claims who fail to use the sciences against what they themselves believe. If believers admit a science-based reasoning to debunk other religious claims then they tacitly admit doing so is fruitful and effective to examine their own religious claims. For believers to object that I'm demanding something unreasonable they must explain why they apply the sciences to the religious claims they reject.

How does Loftus show that science disproves all religions and none of the stand up to scientific tests? Not being able to scientifically confirm a miracle does not mean it didn't happen. A miracle is not necessarily open to scientific experimentation. FacePalm #3. How do the contradictions among religion have anything to do with scientific investigation? It doesn't. No amount of experimentation is going to prove or disprove that Jesus was Resurrected or as Islam claims that he was not crucified at all. Science can show us that a man who is under the conditions and loads caused by being crucified could not have survived. We can scientifically discuss and autopsy a crucified person given the level of knowledge we have of human bodies. This negates the swoon theory.

3) Finally, I find nothing about my demand that should in principle lead to a rejection of theistic claims. I think supernatural explanations could be the best explanations of certain phenomena, even granting that the sciences look for natural explanations. The fact that so far supernatural explanations don't succeed is not the fault of the sciences. It's the fault of supernatural explanations. It's because there are no supernatural forces or beings. If they existed then science should be able to detect them since science is based on the five senses. There is no sixth sense. It would find it duplicitous for a god to create us with our five senses and not also provide the sensory evidence to believe if he wants us to believe.

There was no example given of failed supernatural explanations from the Bible. FacePalm #4. We aren't supposed to know God because of our five senses. We know God when He chooses to reveal Himself to us. We don't call Him. He calls us. I agree with many atheist who think that "God did it" is an unsatisfactory explanation for most things. It's not even needed most of the time because I view science as studying what God did and how He did it. We have physical laws that we can understand and use to describe reality as it is despite the biases we may have given our senses that can't give us a complete picture of the world. Without Faith it impossible to understand those things that our science fails to give us answers for. Like for example: why do we suffer? Why is there evil? God isn't hiding and wants us to know Him but it is not on our terms. The relationship is on God's terms.

Debunking Christianity: Science Based Explanations vs. Faith Based Explanations

My Common Sense Is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Jesse Bering

John Loftus posted the following quote by Jesse Bering and I don't understand something:

Does all this disprove God? Of course not. Science speaks only to the improbable, not the impossible. If philosophy rules the day, God can never be ruled out entirely, because one could argue that human cognitive evolution was directly and intentionally inspired by God, so we alone, of all species, can perceive Him (and reality in general) using our naturally evolved theory of mind. But if scientific parsimony prevails, and I think it should, such philosophical positioning becomes embarrassingly like grasping at straws. (The Belief Instinct, p. 195-

Given my confusion may be because I haven't read this in context of the entire book but I want to know how is it grasping at straws? Bering agrees that God cannot be ruled out. God created everything including how we think then He has made a relationship with Him dependent on revelation by Him. In effect we don't have the tools to independently confirm God's existence without Him. Considering there is nothing at all for which we have complete independence, this shouldn't be a surprise. I also don't know why this is problematic.

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. - John 6:43-59

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Jesse Bering

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Jailed Akron Mom, Kelly Williams-Bolar Exclusive Interview From Jail [VIDEO]

Yesterday, I read an article about Kelly Williams-Bolar who is spending time in jail (ten days) because she sent her daughters to a school in the suburbs instead of the inner city. All she did was say that her children lived with their father instead of with her in the projects. To make it worse, they are going to make her pay the suburban school district more than $30K back to the school district to make up for educating her children for 2 years. They look at it like she stole money from them. That really sucks, in my opinion. It's like they are saying that children can't be considered as belonging to the same household as their father as well as their mother. In California, if parents have joint-custody, some liberties are taken and their situation is taking into account. In this woman's case, I don't know how involved in the children's lives the father is involved but I think that the punishment is unwarranted and the attitude is racist. Beyond question, the school they children were supposed to go to is horrible. Why shouldn't they have a better opportunity because their father lives outside the community. And how is educating a child stealing from any community? Oh yeah, that's right the children are black and poor. Can't have that.

Single Black Mother Jailed for Sending Her Kids to "Better" School District [UPDATE]

THE INTE RSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Jailed Akron Mom, Kelly Williams-Bolar Exclusive Interview From Jail [VIDEO]

CSLewis Case for Christ.pps

Here is a great powerpoint that explains and lays out an introduction to CS Lewis, his theology, and his apologetic (defense) of Christianity. This powerpoint is really great for learning about Apologetics and from a historical viewpoint. I didn't create this powerpoint but it's too awesome not to share.

CSLewis Case for Christ

More PowerPoint presentations from Marcus McElhaney

Thinking God's Thoughts: Is Christianity 7 Times Incoherent?

I thought that this post from Brennon is awesome. In a relatively short post he managed to demolish seven objections to Christianity based around the charge against Christianity that is inconsistent and coherent. Brennon makes really good points and I would tend to think that if one honestly considers them, one must come to the conclusion that they are unassailable.

Thinking God's Thoughts: Is Christianity 7 Times Incoherent?

The Ehrman Project: Resources Answering Bart Ehrman - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has brought attention to a project that I didn't know about - a cache of resources that answer the claims and arguments of Dr. Bart Ehrman. Many people have taken Ehrman as an authority that the Bible, especially the New Testament, is unreliable and you can't know what it really says. Further they seem to think that all experts in Biblical Studies agree with him. That's not true and this particular web site makes this abundantly clear. Here is a quote from the introduction to the project.

Welcome to the Ehrman Project.
Dr. Bart Ehrman is raising significant questions about the reliability of the Bible. In an engaging way, he is questioning the credibility of Christianity. His arguments are not new, which he readily admits. Numerous Biblical scholars profoundly disagree with his findings. This site provides responses to Dr. Ehrman's provocative conclusions.

The Ehrman Project: Resources Answering Bart Ehrman - Apologetics 315

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Debunking Christianity: A Listing of Cognitive Biases

My Common Sense is tingling again. John Loftus recently posted the following:

Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. Link
Why do I keep writing about this? Because we know humans are prone to these biases. We know this. So we should all become skeptics. We should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true. We should adopt a science-based reasoning rather than a faith-based reasoning. Dr. James Alcock defined faith-based reasoning as "belief in search of data." Given the cognitive biases this is simply a wrong-headed approach if we want to know the truth.

Unless John Loftus is not human (I'm assuming he is and I hope that is not a cognitive bias), isn't he also prone to cognitive bias? How does he know he has eliminated his biases against the Bible and God? I'm skeptical that he can or has. I don't even think he can see his perceptual distortions, inaccurate judgments, or illogical interpretations. Why shouldn't science-based reasoning also have the same level of skepticism as faith? There are things about reality that we all agree are true yet can't be substantiated or examined using the scientific method. They can't be weighed, counted, or measured. John Loftus seems to draw the line to stop his skepticism, entrenching his own biases, at the points he is capable and not just unwilling to change but also unable to change.

Debunking Christianity: A Listing of Cognitive Biases

The ‘Black Panther’ Animated Series Arrives On DVD - Check Out An Exclusive Clip & Interview!

I am so going to buy a copy of this DVD. I do want more episodes made. In this article there is a short interview with Reginald Hudlin. He answered some questions about the production that I had wanted to know. He even revealed that the show was made in the United States and not animated in Taiwan, China, or Japan like most animated series these days. If you missed the series you have the chance to go get a copy and do your part to get more episodes of this series made.

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

The ‘Black Panther’ Animated Series Arrives On DVD - Check Out An Exclusive Clip & Interview!

The Theistic Experience: Knowledge Beyond Science: How Can We Know the Truth Outside the Material Realm? David Helfand and Ken Miller@Columbia University

Here is a debate between David Helfand and Ken Miller about how what we know beyond science.

Knowledge Beyond Science: How Can We Know the Truth Outside the Material Realm? from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.

The Theistic Experience: Knowledge Beyond Science: How Can We Know the Truth Outside the Material Realm? David Helfand and Ken Miller@Columbia University

YouTube - Hamas imam says "KIll all the Jews"

Image via Wikipedia
Aren't you glad that not all Muslims think like them. Unfortunately those who do think this way are more than will to carry out such things.

YouTube - Hamas imam says "KIll all the Jews"

Science Can Make the Princess Leia Hologram (Really, Really Poorly) - Topless Robot

Imagine using this thing to make a phone call! I don't think it looks that bad. To think it uses current technology shows how close we really are in using 3D holograms for communication.

Science Can Make the Princess Leia Hologram (Really, Really Poorly) - Topless Robot

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Has the Qur'an been perfectly preserved: Debate

Here is a debate between Bassam Zawadi vs Nabeel Qureshi on the reliability of the transmission of the Qur'an.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Has the Qur'an been perfectly preserved: Debate

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: David Wood: Uncommon Calling?

I have not seen a better example of ad hominem attack on a person than I saw on this article from thegrandverbalizer against David Wood. I'm not surprised. When you can't refute a man's theology or arguments, attacking his character and personal likes and dislikes is the tactic of next resort. For example, thegrandverbalizer tries to use mistakes David Wood made as a young person before he was saved as proof that he should not be trusted. I notice a great deal of the story is not described that David Wood has been on record referencing. Thegrandverbalizer really does not like David Wood. I thought that his misplaced indignation was only directed to Dr James White. I was wrong about the scope of his dislike. Thegrandverbalizer wrote:

Than there comes the mentally unstable Christian with very erratic behavior. It is not just simply having an issue with Islam, but it's finding cause to join with anyone or anything that is simply Anti-Islamic just for the sake of being Anti-Islamic .....even if it is crude, sinister and down right dark.... So this brings me to David Wood. A man who was arrested for attempted murder for bludgeoning his own father with a ball penn hammer!

Now later, it is stated that Wood later became a Christian, but the critique leaves out an important point. David Wood explains (the time I'm thinking of is when he debated John Loftus) that he was a raised an atheist and that his father used to tell David that he was God. He didn't give very much detail then and it has little bearing on how reliable the man is now. We all have sinned...especially before we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. In addition thegrandverbalizer tries insinuate that David Wood is a homosexual. Why? Simple, he can't really refute him. He can't win in a debate so he tries to throw David's character under the bus. Thegrandverbalizer even goes as far as trying to cast David Wood as being immoral and untrustworthy because of the movies and books he likes. These are really pathetic arguments that I think are being made to try to get other Muslims to ignore the arguments and work David Wood does.

Just why is he hated so much? Look at the commentary and video David Wood posted regarding the discovery of a terrorist training camp in the United States.

I find this video both racist and Islamophobic. Everyone knows that if Muslims are preparing to wage Jihad in your country, the "tolerant" thing to do is ignore it. Then, once they have carried out the terrorist attack, the "tolerant" thing to do is to deny that it had anything to do with Muhammad's clear commands to wage Jihad.

His comments are insightful and uses sarcasm and humor to make his point about how stupid our policies are towards people (not all Muslims) who because of how they read their scriptures are mandated to kill us. To make it worse, David Wood and his partners in ministry are really good in showing that those Muslims we label as extreme are really the ones correctly following the Historical Islam and those who are preaching tolerance and love are re-interpreting their scriptures out of their context. Is it any wonder that David Wood, James White, and the others ministering to Muslims are hated by some people? Hatred is the only response they have.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: David Wood: Uncommon Calling?

Answering Muslims: WomanForTruth101 on "Laughable Reinterpretations" of the Qur'an

David Wood posted a response to a person called WomanForTruth1o1. I think David Wood responded very well and it's worth reading and comparing how he consistently treats the Qur'an and the gymnastics Muslims must go through to get around what the Qur'an clearly says to reconcile the Qur'an to what they know is reality - especially when it comes to how one should live today. I think what Wood wrote at the end of the article is worth quoting:

On a different note, if WomenForTruth101 is correct, I don't see how she can call people to Islam. If the Qur'an frequently means the exact opposite of what it says, then perhaps when it commands people to reject the Deity of Christ, it actually means that they should accept the Deity of Christ. Maybe when the Qur'an says that Jesus didn't die, it actually means that he did die. When the Qur'an denies the Trinity, it could be affirming the Trinity. Once Muslims have destroyed the clear meaning of the Qur'an, aren't all interpretations equal?

Follow the link to read the post.

Answering Muslims: WomanForTruth101 on "Laughable Reinterpretations" of the Qur'an

Isaiah 10 and God's Kingship

Here is a recent sermon from James White talking about how Isaiah 10 frames how we should think of the Kingship of God over our lives.

Isaiah 10 and God's Kingship

Monday, January 24, 2011

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Amos’ Third Vision and the Plumb Line

Dr Mariottini has posted another article continuing his study of Amos. This time he looks at the word from God about a objective moral and social values - His standards - represented by a plumb line.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Amos’ Third Vision and the Plumb Line

Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day

Here is a quote from John Loftus that must be rejected on the grounds of common sense.

The bottom line is that the odds of a resurrection from my experience are at 0%. No Bayesian analysis can multiply 0 with any other number and get any more than 0. That's what the probabilities are. So I am skeptical of the extraordinary claim that Jesus resurrected since I cannot dismiss my present experience. I must judge the past from my present. I cannot do otherwise! Coupled with the fact that when I read the NT it provides its own demise there is no reason to believe such a claim EVEN IF IT IS TRUE! --John W. Loftus

How does Loftus know that the odds of a resurrection are 0%? He says it is because of his experience. Does that mean truth can only be determined by your experience? I hope not. No one, not even Loftus, applies this idea to every area of life. Think about it. I didn't experience the moon landing. I don't personally know anyone who went to the moon or worked on the projects. Footage can be faked. Most of the evidence I have is second hand or further from the actual events. Should I throw away all the evidence I do have and conclude the moon landings were all lies? I don't think so. Neither do most people think that there isn't enough evidence to believe men walked on the moon.

Please note, I know that some folks will balk at comparing the Resurrection with the moon landing but i think the analogy works. Just like the moon landing there were eye witnesses to the events of the Resurrection who testified to it being true . And from my point of view (being only 35 years old) they are similar because I didn't personally witness either one.

Think about what Loftus is saying. He thinks because he has never seen or observed a resurrection there never could have been one. Miracles are often not repeatable. That is why they are called "miracles".It seems simply silly to conclude that there is no reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead just because there isn't evidence you will accept and then admit that it could still be true. Does anyone really think that when you stand before Jesus to give an account for your life that will be the bottom line. Could you look Jesus in the face and say "I would have believed if you had given me the evidence that would have convinced me." We already know what His answer will be.

²⁷ “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, ²⁸ for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

²⁹ “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
³⁰ “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

³¹ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” - Luke 16: 27-31

You might not like the answers and evidences God has given us, but I wouldn't try to tell Him he is wrong.

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day

Lessons in God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility: Joseph

James White recently gave a sermon at his home church explaining how Genesis 50 shows how Joseph could look over his roller coaster life full of all kinds of unwelcomed drama and come to the conclusions he reached and forgave his brothers when it was them selling him into slavery was the start of his problems. But it also led to the result of him becoming the number two man in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh himself. It cemented Egypt's place as one of the world's first superpowers. And saved Egypt, Canaan, and all the surrounding nations from a 7 year famine! Dr. White explains in his presentation how and why Joseph could tell his brothers:

But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them. - Genesis 50:19-21

Please note that the image on this article depicts the only reasonable and logical response created creatures such as ourselves should give to the one who made us and is sovereign over all reality - prostrating ourselves at the throne of God.

Lessons in God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility: Joseph

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Related articles

Monday, January 24, 2011

Related articles