Dobson’s Job
After the fight between Obama and Dobson the other day, a friend of mine commented on how James Dobson just wants us all to live by some rules that he creates. I was really bothered by that statement. James Dobson does not want to impose his rules on you. James Dobson believes you – like every man, woman, and child – are going to die and go to hell (without Christ’s salvation). Dobson is trying to prevent this.
Sometimes people make this a way bigger deal than it needs to be. Clear and simple, if you truly believed in the deepest part of your soul that someone you knew was going to die today if you didn’t stop them... wouldn’t you do everything you could think of in order to prevent it? James Dobson is doing everything he can think of to prevent people from going to hell.
comment
08.06.25wed
Sometimes people make this a way bigger deal than it needs to be. Clear and simple, if you truly believed in the deepest part of your soul that someone you knew was going to die today if you didn’t stop them... wouldn’t you do everything you could think of in order to prevent it? James Dobson is doing everything he can think of to prevent people from going to hell.
comment
Dobson vs. Obama
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, gave all the news agencies (oh, and bloggers like myself) something to go off about this week. Dobson confronted Obama over a speech he gave in 2006 which seems to say the Bible and religious values have no place in deciding public policy.
The verbal firestorm was sparked by this statement from Obama...
Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?
People who do not have a good understanding of the Bible – and this is not saying Christians, vs. non-Chirstians... simply anyone who has not taken the time to understand what the Old Testament represents and what the New Testament represents – will bring up an individual verse out of the Bible and suggest it is to be taken literal. They don’t mention the context of the verse, who the verse was spoken to, or any historical perspective.
Obama did just that in his speech.
Leviticus is a book that primarily speaks of offerings, both gifts to God and offerings as a way to atone for your sins. What is described in this book is not something that we are told to follow, simply because it was trumped by Jesus coming to die for our sins.
Even the word “atonement” that is used in this book shows the difference in what the Jewish people were required, and what we are now required. The hebrew word used in this book meant “to cover”, whereas in the New Testament the word used means “to make one with”. The Jewish people were able to use these sacrifices to cover their sin. We can now be one with God because Jesus’ sacrifice doesn’t cover our since, it removes it.
As I stated previously, it is ludicrous to pull one sentence from the Bible and ask if this is something we should be basing our laws on. Obama suggests that “folks haven’t been reading their Bible.” He’s obviously read it, but did he learn it?
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said, “... he is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”
Obama replied, “there’s no theological work being done in that speech in terms of the Bible.”
But Dobson is correct here. While Obama argues that he is not doing any theological work in his speech, he is in fact distorting something he found in the Bible in order to make is fit his views.
Continuing on statements made in Obama’s speech...
I have to explain why abortion violates some principal that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
This smacks of the current “tolerance” crap in our country. There’s a problem here in that someone has to dictate what is or is not moral. If what Obama is stating is correct, morals are a sliding scale based on how we as a country feel right now.
I’m reminded of the controversial comparison between two men marrying each other and a man marrying a horse. The proponents of gay marriages say that it’s obvious that a man marrying a horse is ridiculous and obviously immoral. True... today it is. But if morality can be easily shifted simply by enough of the public changing their opinion, then why is it impossible to think horse marriages will be the highlight of a future election?
Stephanie Dube blogged, “in politics, we can’t just demand a law because the principle is in the Bible. If we do that, then someday we’ll find laws passed based on other religions that might destroy our own freedoms.” But she’s missing an important point. Like it or not, this country was founded on biblical principals. People like Dobson are upset because what Obama is doing is exactly what she is warning against. Taking the Bible out of our laws is exactly the same as making laws based on other religions.
We have to find an absolute. There has to be a solid line defining what is right and what is wrong. And there’s only one person who ever made that absolute.
This verbal fight between Dobson and Obama has accomplished one positive thing... it’s brought some important issues to the forefront of people’s minds. It has sparked a debate and a dialog with a lot of people over who or what determines what is and what is not moral. This is a decision this country needs to make. We have 92% of this country who claim to have a belief in God, yet it is obvious that a majority do not want God to be this country’s moral compass. I probably won’t like what the final decision is, but it is time for this country to make a stand on whether we are really going to be a Christian nation as it was founded, or whether we will just get along with everybody. You can’t have both.
08.06.02mon
The verbal firestorm was sparked by this statement from Obama...
Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?
People who do not have a good understanding of the Bible – and this is not saying Christians, vs. non-Chirstians... simply anyone who has not taken the time to understand what the Old Testament represents and what the New Testament represents – will bring up an individual verse out of the Bible and suggest it is to be taken literal. They don’t mention the context of the verse, who the verse was spoken to, or any historical perspective.
Obama did just that in his speech.
Leviticus is a book that primarily speaks of offerings, both gifts to God and offerings as a way to atone for your sins. What is described in this book is not something that we are told to follow, simply because it was trumped by Jesus coming to die for our sins.
Even the word “atonement” that is used in this book shows the difference in what the Jewish people were required, and what we are now required. The hebrew word used in this book meant “to cover”, whereas in the New Testament the word used means “to make one with”. The Jewish people were able to use these sacrifices to cover their sin. We can now be one with God because Jesus’ sacrifice doesn’t cover our since, it removes it.
As I stated previously, it is ludicrous to pull one sentence from the Bible and ask if this is something we should be basing our laws on. Obama suggests that “folks haven’t been reading their Bible.” He’s obviously read it, but did he learn it?
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said, “... he is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”
Obama replied, “there’s no theological work being done in that speech in terms of the Bible.”
But Dobson is correct here. While Obama argues that he is not doing any theological work in his speech, he is in fact distorting something he found in the Bible in order to make is fit his views.
Continuing on statements made in Obama’s speech...
I have to explain why abortion violates some principal that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
This smacks of the current “tolerance” crap in our country. There’s a problem here in that someone has to dictate what is or is not moral. If what Obama is stating is correct, morals are a sliding scale based on how we as a country feel right now.
I’m reminded of the controversial comparison between two men marrying each other and a man marrying a horse. The proponents of gay marriages say that it’s obvious that a man marrying a horse is ridiculous and obviously immoral. True... today it is. But if morality can be easily shifted simply by enough of the public changing their opinion, then why is it impossible to think horse marriages will be the highlight of a future election?
Stephanie Dube blogged, “in politics, we can’t just demand a law because the principle is in the Bible. If we do that, then someday we’ll find laws passed based on other religions that might destroy our own freedoms.” But she’s missing an important point. Like it or not, this country was founded on biblical principals. People like Dobson are upset because what Obama is doing is exactly what she is warning against. Taking the Bible out of our laws is exactly the same as making laws based on other religions.
We have to find an absolute. There has to be a solid line defining what is right and what is wrong. And there’s only one person who ever made that absolute.
This verbal fight between Dobson and Obama has accomplished one positive thing... it’s brought some important issues to the forefront of people’s minds. It has sparked a debate and a dialog with a lot of people over who or what determines what is and what is not moral. This is a decision this country needs to make. We have 92% of this country who claim to have a belief in God, yet it is obvious that a majority do not want God to be this country’s moral compass. I probably won’t like what the final decision is, but it is time for this country to make a stand on whether we are really going to be a Christian nation as it was founded, or whether we will just get along with everybody. You can’t have both.
California Gay Marriage
While I was sans Internet, the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Sexual orientation, like race or gender, “does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.” This decision by the court overturns a 2000 voter referendum banning same-sex marriage.
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, said in a written statement...
The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench.
The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.
I read very similar comments in a number of email I received over the past few days. Most of my conservative friends expected me to agree with them. While I completely disagree with the court’s decision, I have an issue with Barber’s comments.
We have a system in place that prevents “mob rule”. What would happen if the majority of voters determined that “colored people” couldn’t eat in the same restaurants as whites? What if a majority of people felt religious people shouldn’t be allowed to pray in public? Would you then want the courts to “overturn the will of the people”?
The courts are there specifically to go against the will of the voters... when the voters a deciding something that may be unconstitutional. So in that regard, the courts are not legislating from the bench.
Whether gay marriage is a constitutional right... that’s a whole other entry.
08.03.23sun
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, said in a written statement...
The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench.
The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.
I read very similar comments in a number of email I received over the past few days. Most of my conservative friends expected me to agree with them. While I completely disagree with the court’s decision, I have an issue with Barber’s comments.
We have a system in place that prevents “mob rule”. What would happen if the majority of voters determined that “colored people” couldn’t eat in the same restaurants as whites? What if a majority of people felt religious people shouldn’t be allowed to pray in public? Would you then want the courts to “overturn the will of the people”?
The courts are there specifically to go against the will of the voters... when the voters a deciding something that may be unconstitutional. So in that regard, the courts are not legislating from the bench.
Whether gay marriage is a constitutional right... that’s a whole other entry.
Suess the Prophet
The wife and I took our boys to see Horton Hears a Who this weekend. The movie was amazingly well done. The animation really looks like the Suess world come to life, using the same styles, colors, and unorthodox angles and curves that made Suess books so entertaining. There were only two parts that were not very enjoyable. The first was the “Pokemon” scene, where the writers felt the need to dumb down the original Suess style to something modern – as if kids can’t relate unless you make it like every other cartoon out there. The second was the annoying musical number at the end, that did not fit the mood of the entire movie at all. I haven’t read the story in a long time, and was surprised by the religious undertones I sensed in the movie. I felt strangely connected to Horton throughout the movie.
Horton is convinced that there is a whole world in trouble on a tiny spec that he’s managed to save on a flower. No one believes him... if you can’t see it or hear it, then it can’t exist. The know-it-all, Sour Kangaroo, has such a strong personality – plus she’s a respected leader in the jungle – everyone quickly chooses to side with her over Horton. Even Horton’s best friend, Morton, tries to convince him that it’s best if he just keeps his beliefs to himself. He doesn’t say Horton should change what he believes, just don’t tell anyone.
Even when Horton does choose to keep his beliefs to himself, that’s not good enough. Instead it moves to slight teasing, increasing quickly to full embarrassment and ridiculing, and finally flat out persecution. And again, even his friends, while not contributing to his persecution, do very little to stop it.
The parallels to Christianity are uncanny. If you can’t see God, if you can’t hear Him, then He doesn’t exist. If you want to believe it, just keep it to yourself. Even your friends tell you it’s okay to believe what you want, but just don’t tell anyone.
How long after is it that you are laughed at? You take your personal – and now private – beliefs and separate yourself from mainstream society. Eventually, even that is not good enough. “Rope him, cage him.” Even the do-gooders in society can’t help but spread rumors that you still believe. “I saw him, he still thinks there is a God.” Eventually the only way to save yourself is to publicly confess you no longer believe.
In the U.S. this all seems ludicrous. Or does it? As I write this, there are literally thousands of web sites explaining why creationists are laughable, and thousands of sites that explain how laughable it is that people believe in a God. On YouTube there is a 21 part series entitled, “Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?” Have you ever had a friend tell you that it’s okay if you believe in God, but don’t tell everybody about it? Or perhaps they say something more subtle, like, “Believing in God should be a personal and private thing.” How far off are we from being removed from mainstream society? How long before we are told that we just need to denounce our beliefs?
Audrey Geisel, wife of the late Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel), has stated she does not like people “hijacking” Dr. Suess stories to make political statements. This is fairly ironic, as Geisel’s early works were satirical commentaries against various political views he didn’t agree with. At the beginning of World War II, Geisel wrote political cartoons for the left-wing New York daily paper, PM. Even his children’s books were known for containing subtle political references. In “Horton”, the monkeys make statements borrowed from Joseph McCarthy.
08.03.13thu
Horton is convinced that there is a whole world in trouble on a tiny spec that he’s managed to save on a flower. No one believes him... if you can’t see it or hear it, then it can’t exist. The know-it-all, Sour Kangaroo, has such a strong personality – plus she’s a respected leader in the jungle – everyone quickly chooses to side with her over Horton. Even Horton’s best friend, Morton, tries to convince him that it’s best if he just keeps his beliefs to himself. He doesn’t say Horton should change what he believes, just don’t tell anyone.
Even when Horton does choose to keep his beliefs to himself, that’s not good enough. Instead it moves to slight teasing, increasing quickly to full embarrassment and ridiculing, and finally flat out persecution. And again, even his friends, while not contributing to his persecution, do very little to stop it.
The parallels to Christianity are uncanny. If you can’t see God, if you can’t hear Him, then He doesn’t exist. If you want to believe it, just keep it to yourself. Even your friends tell you it’s okay to believe what you want, but just don’t tell anyone.
How long after is it that you are laughed at? You take your personal – and now private – beliefs and separate yourself from mainstream society. Eventually, even that is not good enough. “Rope him, cage him.” Even the do-gooders in society can’t help but spread rumors that you still believe. “I saw him, he still thinks there is a God.” Eventually the only way to save yourself is to publicly confess you no longer believe.
In the U.S. this all seems ludicrous. Or does it? As I write this, there are literally thousands of web sites explaining why creationists are laughable, and thousands of sites that explain how laughable it is that people believe in a God. On YouTube there is a 21 part series entitled, “Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?” Have you ever had a friend tell you that it’s okay if you believe in God, but don’t tell everybody about it? Or perhaps they say something more subtle, like, “Believing in God should be a personal and private thing.” How far off are we from being removed from mainstream society? How long before we are told that we just need to denounce our beliefs?
Audrey Geisel, wife of the late Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel), has stated she does not like people “hijacking” Dr. Suess stories to make political statements. This is fairly ironic, as Geisel’s early works were satirical commentaries against various political views he didn’t agree with. At the beginning of World War II, Geisel wrote political cartoons for the left-wing New York daily paper, PM. Even his children’s books were known for containing subtle political references. In “Horton”, the monkeys make statements borrowed from Joseph McCarthy.
Inconvenient God
I Kings 17 tells a story of Elijah in the midst of a drought. The thing I find fascinating in this story is how completely inconvenient God makes Elijah’s life. We have ideas in our head on how things should be, and how we would do things if we were God. But God doesn’t subscribe to our theories. He does things his own way.
Here is the story as the Bible tells it...
(This is my paraphrase, not any sort of official translation, which you can read here.)
The current king, Ahab, married a woman who was into idol worship... which pretty much makes Ahab into idol worship. One of the gods was Baal, who is the “god of nature”. Elijah tells Ahab that there will be no rain for a few years. No rain until Elijah says so. No rain makes Baal look bad. Real bad.
This will undoubtedly make Ahab angry with Elijah, so God suggests that Elijah should flee. God picks out the Kerith Ravine for Elijah. The name means “cut off”, so it’s probably a pleasant place to hide. Elijah drinks what he can from the brook, and he eats what food the ravens bring him.
By the way, a raven is a dirty animal to a law abiding Jew. The comparison would be to have pigs bring food to a Muslim.
Since there was indeed no rain, the brook dried up. God tells Elijah he should move on, and tells him to find a widow in Zarephath. This is a 60 mile walk. No food, no water, and a 60 mile walk to go find a widow who may or may not want you to come visit. When Elijah gets to the widow, she says, “I don’t even have any bread. I have only a handful of flour and a little oil.”
This chain of events makes no sense... to man. After all, Elijah was doing what God instructed. Compare that to how the story would read if man were in charge...
As noted before, King Ahab worships Baal, the “god of nature”. Elijah tells him there will be no rain, angering the king. God sends a horse to Elijah so that he can go visit the wealthy ruler in a nearby town. This wealthy ruler has plenty of food and water, as well as a well guarded fortress to hide the prophet. Chances are, the ruler also hates Ahab, so he and Elijah can site around talking about how evil Ahab is. Elijah hides there for three years until he can return to Ahab to make his point that idol worship is wrong, and Baal is a false god.
God is all powerful. There’s no reason he could not have done it this way. But God has never been convenient. Virtually every story in the Bible confirms that being a follower of God is not convenient either. Conversely, the more you follow Him, the more likely you are to run into struggles.
If man had truly made this whole thing up, why wouldn’t he have made him more convenient? Why wouldn’t God’s logic fit ours more closely?
08.03.05wed
Here is the story as the Bible tells it...
(This is my paraphrase, not any sort of official translation, which you can read here.)
The current king, Ahab, married a woman who was into idol worship... which pretty much makes Ahab into idol worship. One of the gods was Baal, who is the “god of nature”. Elijah tells Ahab that there will be no rain for a few years. No rain until Elijah says so. No rain makes Baal look bad. Real bad.
This will undoubtedly make Ahab angry with Elijah, so God suggests that Elijah should flee. God picks out the Kerith Ravine for Elijah. The name means “cut off”, so it’s probably a pleasant place to hide. Elijah drinks what he can from the brook, and he eats what food the ravens bring him.
By the way, a raven is a dirty animal to a law abiding Jew. The comparison would be to have pigs bring food to a Muslim.
Since there was indeed no rain, the brook dried up. God tells Elijah he should move on, and tells him to find a widow in Zarephath. This is a 60 mile walk. No food, no water, and a 60 mile walk to go find a widow who may or may not want you to come visit. When Elijah gets to the widow, she says, “I don’t even have any bread. I have only a handful of flour and a little oil.”
This chain of events makes no sense... to man. After all, Elijah was doing what God instructed. Compare that to how the story would read if man were in charge...
As noted before, King Ahab worships Baal, the “god of nature”. Elijah tells him there will be no rain, angering the king. God sends a horse to Elijah so that he can go visit the wealthy ruler in a nearby town. This wealthy ruler has plenty of food and water, as well as a well guarded fortress to hide the prophet. Chances are, the ruler also hates Ahab, so he and Elijah can site around talking about how evil Ahab is. Elijah hides there for three years until he can return to Ahab to make his point that idol worship is wrong, and Baal is a false god.
God is all powerful. There’s no reason he could not have done it this way. But God has never been convenient. Virtually every story in the Bible confirms that being a follower of God is not convenient either. Conversely, the more you follow Him, the more likely you are to run into struggles.
If man had truly made this whole thing up, why wouldn’t he have made him more convenient? Why wouldn’t God’s logic fit ours more closely?
Jesus: Life Enhancer
We seem to have a bad habit of “selling Jesus” as a way to improve life. If you become a Christian, your life will be so much better. The Bible is full of promises of prosperity and happiness, accept Jesus and cash in! What a bunch of bunk.
You go into the heart of the jungle and tell some poor hut-dweller that his life can get better if he accepts Jesus. Go into an oppressive country, where Christians are slaughtered for their beliefs, and tell them that their life would be better if only they believed in Jesus.
Why did Jesus come?
1. To bring the truth...
And for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. – John 18:37
2. To save...
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. – Luke 19:10
3. To judge (shocking, I know)...
For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind. – John 9:39
The Bible doesn’t say Christ came to make you happy, end your poverty, or even fix your marriage. The Bible says if you become a Christian, you’ll probably have it even worse...
In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted – II Timothy 3:12
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ’No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. – John 15:19-20
We have got to stop offering false hopes that Jesus will enhance people’s lives. He won’t. And when life’s issues come back – and they will come back – people who are only in it for the convenience won’t stick around. Jesus didn’t offer the Samaritan woman water for her physical need, He offered her living water. We need to be providing eternal solutions, not short term fixes.
08.02.26tue
You go into the heart of the jungle and tell some poor hut-dweller that his life can get better if he accepts Jesus. Go into an oppressive country, where Christians are slaughtered for their beliefs, and tell them that their life would be better if only they believed in Jesus.
Why did Jesus come?
1. To bring the truth...
And for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. – John 18:37
2. To save...
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. – Luke 19:10
3. To judge (shocking, I know)...
For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind. – John 9:39
The Bible doesn’t say Christ came to make you happy, end your poverty, or even fix your marriage. The Bible says if you become a Christian, you’ll probably have it even worse...
In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted – II Timothy 3:12
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ’No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. – John 15:19-20
We have got to stop offering false hopes that Jesus will enhance people’s lives. He won’t. And when life’s issues come back – and they will come back – people who are only in it for the convenience won’t stick around. Jesus didn’t offer the Samaritan woman water for her physical need, He offered her living water. We need to be providing eternal solutions, not short term fixes.
Mega-Church Money
I’ve heard a lot of comments regarding how mega-churches just “rake in the money”. These commentators have no experience with mega-churches, having never attended one nor worked for one. But they think they have the authority on the money the church rolls in.
I once heard a church averages $20 per adult, per week. For sake of argument, let’s assume there are 2,500 adults attending your church on Sunday morning. That puts the annual income around $2.5 million. Sounds like you’re rolling in it now, right? Before you go spending it on yachts and luxury cars, you’re going to have to pay some bills.
If you have 2,500 adults visiting each week, you will also have roughly 2,500 children. Just the cost of ownership for a building – or buildings – to hold that many people will run about $500,000 per year. On top of the cost of ownership there is also an unknown amount for upkeep and maintenance such as painting, repairing, parking lot sealing and striping, and so on. And if you plan to have 5,000 people milling about, you’re going to need really good liability insurance.
Utilities are not cheap either. The electricity alone for this large of a campus would run an estimated $600 per hour. That’s $200,000 annually to provide Sunday morning services only. Don’t forget to add the water bill and heating bill to that.
Internet services (web hosting, firewall, and connectivity) would be around $12,000. Printing costs for bulletins, flyers, sign-up forms, and mailers will run a surprising $250,000 each year.
The larger the congregation, the more staff you will need to handle all of the logistical requirements. On average, for every 200 adults, you will want to have one pastor, one full-time staff person, and one part-time staff person. Staff will range from secretaries to graphic artists, audio engineers to janitors, and even web developers. With 12 pastors and 25 additional staff, you can expect to have a payroll of over $1 million. This doesn’t count the costs all employers pay like payroll taxes and social security.
We’ve now covered over 80% of your budget. The typical church spends 10% of all donations on their foreign missionaries, so make that over 90% of your budget already spent. But don’t worry, you still have $250,000 to split with the hungry, the needy, the children... you do want to have a Vacation Bible School each summer, right?
If you’re reading this, and you’ve already made plans to start your own mega-church to become rich... sorry it doesn’t look like it’s going to work out. Maybe you could try having a bunch of foster kids.
08.02.24sun
I once heard a church averages $20 per adult, per week. For sake of argument, let’s assume there are 2,500 adults attending your church on Sunday morning. That puts the annual income around $2.5 million. Sounds like you’re rolling in it now, right? Before you go spending it on yachts and luxury cars, you’re going to have to pay some bills.
If you have 2,500 adults visiting each week, you will also have roughly 2,500 children. Just the cost of ownership for a building – or buildings – to hold that many people will run about $500,000 per year. On top of the cost of ownership there is also an unknown amount for upkeep and maintenance such as painting, repairing, parking lot sealing and striping, and so on. And if you plan to have 5,000 people milling about, you’re going to need really good liability insurance.
Utilities are not cheap either. The electricity alone for this large of a campus would run an estimated $600 per hour. That’s $200,000 annually to provide Sunday morning services only. Don’t forget to add the water bill and heating bill to that.
Internet services (web hosting, firewall, and connectivity) would be around $12,000. Printing costs for bulletins, flyers, sign-up forms, and mailers will run a surprising $250,000 each year.
The larger the congregation, the more staff you will need to handle all of the logistical requirements. On average, for every 200 adults, you will want to have one pastor, one full-time staff person, and one part-time staff person. Staff will range from secretaries to graphic artists, audio engineers to janitors, and even web developers. With 12 pastors and 25 additional staff, you can expect to have a payroll of over $1 million. This doesn’t count the costs all employers pay like payroll taxes and social security.
We’ve now covered over 80% of your budget. The typical church spends 10% of all donations on their foreign missionaries, so make that over 90% of your budget already spent. But don’t worry, you still have $250,000 to split with the hungry, the needy, the children... you do want to have a Vacation Bible School each summer, right?
If you’re reading this, and you’ve already made plans to start your own mega-church to become rich... sorry it doesn’t look like it’s going to work out. Maybe you could try having a bunch of foster kids.
If There Is a God, Why Do Bad Things Happen?
God does not let bad things happen. God allows all things to happen.
First, to clarify, there are two distinct types of “bad things”. Intentional, evil actions; and unintentional, incontrollable natural disasters. I want to explore both.
Evil exists because man has a free will. God gave us choices, allowing us to do as we wish with our body, mind, spirit. If He stops any evil – removing free will from the equation – we would simply be robots who only act the ways we’ve been programmed to act. If we don’t have the choice to do good, but are programmed to do good, then there’s nothing meaningful about it. When we have the ability to do good or evil, then good becomes significant.
To further understand the importance of free will, take look at your spouse, son, or daughter. How much does it mean when your child hugs you and says they love you? How important is it to you when your spouse tells you they love you? If you could magically force them to say they love you, would it be the same? Love is a choice.
So, what if God only stopped people from doing bad things? Who determines what is bad? What intervention should God use to stop it? In order for God to stop every person from doing wrong, He would have to prevent you from being able to make choices. Would you give up your right to control your own destiny in order to stop every wrong action from occurring?
Regarding natural disasters, as it was written in Genesis 1:26, God gave man control over the earth. With man’s sin, control was given over to Satan. It is because of man’s choice to sin that gave Satan the power to cause disasters. Once again, our own free will plays a part.
It is hard to accept this fact sometimes, but we are minor and inconsequential in the span of our known universe. Personal struggles and even loss of life are ridiculously minor outside our own lives. Death is so severe because we were not intended to die. In our very core, we were designed to live forever. But again, as a result of our sin, we changed our destiny and now have to experience death, something foreign to our original design.
Why doesn’t God protect Christians from bad things? If all Christians were given a free pass on all pain and suffering simply for being Christians, and all problems ceased, serving God is no longer much of a choice. At that point, you would be a Christian solely for the benefits, not the relationship with Christ. God doesn’t want you to be in it for what you can profit, He wants to have a relationship with you. The relationship we were intended to have before sin. God also uses events – both good and bad – to shape Christians to be the person He wants them to become. A sailor never becomes a good sailor without rough waters.
Job, who was “blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil,” asked God this very same question. God responds...
Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him! Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? – Job 38-42
What makes us as human beings worthy to have some sort of protection from natural disasters or evil? God asks, who are you to question Him? Because God is good, we don’t get what we deserve. Question – deny – His divinity, you very well may.
08.02.20wed
First, to clarify, there are two distinct types of “bad things”. Intentional, evil actions; and unintentional, incontrollable natural disasters. I want to explore both.
Evil exists because man has a free will. God gave us choices, allowing us to do as we wish with our body, mind, spirit. If He stops any evil – removing free will from the equation – we would simply be robots who only act the ways we’ve been programmed to act. If we don’t have the choice to do good, but are programmed to do good, then there’s nothing meaningful about it. When we have the ability to do good or evil, then good becomes significant.
To further understand the importance of free will, take look at your spouse, son, or daughter. How much does it mean when your child hugs you and says they love you? How important is it to you when your spouse tells you they love you? If you could magically force them to say they love you, would it be the same? Love is a choice.
So, what if God only stopped people from doing bad things? Who determines what is bad? What intervention should God use to stop it? In order for God to stop every person from doing wrong, He would have to prevent you from being able to make choices. Would you give up your right to control your own destiny in order to stop every wrong action from occurring?
Regarding natural disasters, as it was written in Genesis 1:26, God gave man control over the earth. With man’s sin, control was given over to Satan. It is because of man’s choice to sin that gave Satan the power to cause disasters. Once again, our own free will plays a part.
It is hard to accept this fact sometimes, but we are minor and inconsequential in the span of our known universe. Personal struggles and even loss of life are ridiculously minor outside our own lives. Death is so severe because we were not intended to die. In our very core, we were designed to live forever. But again, as a result of our sin, we changed our destiny and now have to experience death, something foreign to our original design.
Why doesn’t God protect Christians from bad things? If all Christians were given a free pass on all pain and suffering simply for being Christians, and all problems ceased, serving God is no longer much of a choice. At that point, you would be a Christian solely for the benefits, not the relationship with Christ. God doesn’t want you to be in it for what you can profit, He wants to have a relationship with you. The relationship we were intended to have before sin. God also uses events – both good and bad – to shape Christians to be the person He wants them to become. A sailor never becomes a good sailor without rough waters.
Job, who was “blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil,” asked God this very same question. God responds...
Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him! Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? – Job 38-42
What makes us as human beings worthy to have some sort of protection from natural disasters or evil? God asks, who are you to question Him? Because God is good, we don’t get what we deserve. Question – deny – His divinity, you very well may.
Evolution in Florida
Florida added evolution to the science curriculum standards, only after a compromise was made to call evolution a “scientific theory” rather than a fact. I previously mentioned the differences in theory and fact in the scientific world. What I don’t understand is the level of anger that comes from the pro-evolution group on this compromise.
08.02.18mon
More Beer.
In response to my entry about beer, I received an email regarding wine. If beer isn’t right for me, is wine? That one is a bit harder for me to answer than beer. Wine is significantly different from beer, since it has a different purpose. While you technically can get drunk on wine, it’s not usually the preferred method, nor the typical purpose. But I find myself concerned at the number of comments people will make in justifying their consumption of alcohol.
The email I received contains a link to an article on the topic of drinking wine and wine in the Bible. It contained some of the typical arguments for wine... One, people in the Bible – specifically the disciples – drank wine. Two, wine in the Bible was fermented. Three, even Paul tells Timothy to drink wine for his stomach problem.
2,000 years ago there was no proper method for storing juices, so any juice made would become fermented. But that’s not to say every time a person in the Bible drank wine they were drinking a strong alcoholic beverage. Obviously there would have been varying degrees of fermentation.
In addition, over-the-counter medicines were not available. At the time, wine was the over-the-counter drug for common ailments. Fast forwarding to current day, considering all of our options, you would appear rather foolish if you drank wine as your cure for sickness.
Going back to my original statement regarding your testimony to a non-Christian or a weaker Christian, do the arguments above still sound valid? We have proper medication for most sicknesses. Likewise, we have plenty of beverage options wherever we go. Drinking wine becomes an intentional choice to serve a purpose. What is that purpose?
The question I would ask, which can cover a variety of gray area “sins” not just wine or beer, are you simply looking to justify a habit you are unwilling to stop? Or are you truly comfortable with your stated beliefs on the topic? I feel I could drink wine conscience free, but I choose not to.
08.02.17sun
The email I received contains a link to an article on the topic of drinking wine and wine in the Bible. It contained some of the typical arguments for wine... One, people in the Bible – specifically the disciples – drank wine. Two, wine in the Bible was fermented. Three, even Paul tells Timothy to drink wine for his stomach problem.
2,000 years ago there was no proper method for storing juices, so any juice made would become fermented. But that’s not to say every time a person in the Bible drank wine they were drinking a strong alcoholic beverage. Obviously there would have been varying degrees of fermentation.
In addition, over-the-counter medicines were not available. At the time, wine was the over-the-counter drug for common ailments. Fast forwarding to current day, considering all of our options, you would appear rather foolish if you drank wine as your cure for sickness.
Going back to my original statement regarding your testimony to a non-Christian or a weaker Christian, do the arguments above still sound valid? We have proper medication for most sicknesses. Likewise, we have plenty of beverage options wherever we go. Drinking wine becomes an intentional choice to serve a purpose. What is that purpose?
The question I would ask, which can cover a variety of gray area “sins” not just wine or beer, are you simply looking to justify a habit you are unwilling to stop? Or are you truly comfortable with your stated beliefs on the topic? I feel I could drink wine conscience free, but I choose not to.
Fake Christians
Charles Barkley, in an interview on CNN, declared that he is pro-gay marriage and pro-choice... then said that conservatives who oppose these issues are “fake christians”. Mr. Barkley is obviously confused at to what a Christian really is (not to mention what a judge and a jury does).
They want to be judge and jury... like I am for gay marriage, it’s none of my business if gay people want to get married. I’m pro-choice, and I think these christians... first of all, they’re suppose to be... they’re not suppose to judge other people, but they’re the most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country. And it bugs the hell out of me, they act like they’re christians but they’re not forgiving at all.
Obviously, Mr. Barkley never studied Christ. While Jesus did speak of forgiveness, He also condemned sin and confronted the sinner.
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. – Matthew 5:17
And while Jesus said we shouldn’t point out a speck in one’s eye when we have a plank in our own, He didn’t we shouldn’t help our brother. Rather He said to remove our own issues, then carefully help our brother with his.
...first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. – Luke 6:42
And regarding judging, He makes an interesting statement...
Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment. – John 7:24
But comments like that of Charles Barkley are not unique. It is very common to suggest that by teaching right and wrong, a Christian is both a hypocrite and intolerant.
A hypocrite is someone who intentionally deceives. Yet every time a Christian demonstrates human behavior, they are quickly labeled as a hypocrite. And just because it is in our nature to do wrong, does not mean we should never stand for what it right.
Nor should we not stand for anything, which is what the “tolerant” faction thinks. My inability to agree with your incorrect viewpoints does not mean I am intolerant. It means we have disagreeing opinions. It doesn’t mean I shouldn’t express my views.
My question for Charles Barkley would be, why am I being “judge and jury” because I disagree with him... but he is not when he disagrees with me?
08.02.11mon
They want to be judge and jury... like I am for gay marriage, it’s none of my business if gay people want to get married. I’m pro-choice, and I think these christians... first of all, they’re suppose to be... they’re not suppose to judge other people, but they’re the most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country. And it bugs the hell out of me, they act like they’re christians but they’re not forgiving at all.
Obviously, Mr. Barkley never studied Christ. While Jesus did speak of forgiveness, He also condemned sin and confronted the sinner.
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. – Matthew 5:17
And while Jesus said we shouldn’t point out a speck in one’s eye when we have a plank in our own, He didn’t we shouldn’t help our brother. Rather He said to remove our own issues, then carefully help our brother with his.
...first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. – Luke 6:42
And regarding judging, He makes an interesting statement...
Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment. – John 7:24
But comments like that of Charles Barkley are not unique. It is very common to suggest that by teaching right and wrong, a Christian is both a hypocrite and intolerant.
A hypocrite is someone who intentionally deceives. Yet every time a Christian demonstrates human behavior, they are quickly labeled as a hypocrite. And just because it is in our nature to do wrong, does not mean we should never stand for what it right.
Nor should we not stand for anything, which is what the “tolerant” faction thinks. My inability to agree with your incorrect viewpoints does not mean I am intolerant. It means we have disagreeing opinions. It doesn’t mean I shouldn’t express my views.
My question for Charles Barkley would be, why am I being “judge and jury” because I disagree with him... but he is not when he disagrees with me?
Are You Really an Atheist?
I have friends who are self-proclaimed atheists. That is, I did not label them this way, they labeled themselves this way. However, there have been comments made by my friends, and some more famous atheists, that has me convinced they are not atheists. Rather they are a term I made up, Iradeists – Angry at God.
There are four main complaints among atheists involving God in our society: The Ten Commandments in court rooms; “In God We Trust” printed on our money; “One Nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance; and nativity scenes displayed on public property. For each of these, the complaint is that these displays are offensive. The atheist is offended by the mention or display of a God he does not believe in, displayed in public places.
If you do not believe in God, and you therefore remove God from the Ten Commandments, they simply become basic principles to live by. Honor your mother and father, don’t kill, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal. Hardly offensive.
If you do not believe if God, then why is it offensive for this to be a nation under God, or for our money to declare we put our trust in God? Simply, it would be the same as saying, “One Nation under whatever”, or “In whatever we trust”.
How is a nativity scene – if God is nothing and Jesus is the son of nothing – offensive? If there is no God, then the nativity scene is only a diorama of some poor baby being born in a dumpy little stable.
These things are only offensive if there really is a God.
I’m reminded again of something Paul wrote in Romans. He said he could eat meat sacrificed to idols because the idols meant nothing. If the idols meant nothing, the sacrifice meant nothing. When God means nothing, His laws, His power over us, and even the birth of His Son means nothing.
But God does mean something, which is why you are angry. So what is it you are angry about? What has God done to you that is so awful that the mention of his name repulses you? Did you one day realize that the attributes, the responsibilities, the expectations that you set upon God are not fulfilled? When you could not mold God into who you think He should be, you choose to deny His existence.
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. – Psalm 19:1-3
The heavens declare the glory of God. No person, no country, no language, can escape His presence being made known to you.
Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:19-20
So that men are without excuse.
08.02.09sat
There are four main complaints among atheists involving God in our society: The Ten Commandments in court rooms; “In God We Trust” printed on our money; “One Nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance; and nativity scenes displayed on public property. For each of these, the complaint is that these displays are offensive. The atheist is offended by the mention or display of a God he does not believe in, displayed in public places.
If you do not believe in God, and you therefore remove God from the Ten Commandments, they simply become basic principles to live by. Honor your mother and father, don’t kill, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal. Hardly offensive.
If you do not believe if God, then why is it offensive for this to be a nation under God, or for our money to declare we put our trust in God? Simply, it would be the same as saying, “One Nation under whatever”, or “In whatever we trust”.
How is a nativity scene – if God is nothing and Jesus is the son of nothing – offensive? If there is no God, then the nativity scene is only a diorama of some poor baby being born in a dumpy little stable.
These things are only offensive if there really is a God.
I’m reminded again of something Paul wrote in Romans. He said he could eat meat sacrificed to idols because the idols meant nothing. If the idols meant nothing, the sacrifice meant nothing. When God means nothing, His laws, His power over us, and even the birth of His Son means nothing.
But God does mean something, which is why you are angry. So what is it you are angry about? What has God done to you that is so awful that the mention of his name repulses you? Did you one day realize that the attributes, the responsibilities, the expectations that you set upon God are not fulfilled? When you could not mold God into who you think He should be, you choose to deny His existence.
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. – Psalm 19:1-3
The heavens declare the glory of God. No person, no country, no language, can escape His presence being made known to you.
Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:19-20
So that men are without excuse.
Beer.
The topic of “is it okay to drink” is something that I have debated, and questioned, a number of times. I have good friends who are strong Christians that stand on both sides of the fence. I have as many questions on the topic as perhaps answers.
Romans 14 is used frequently as the chapter that answers the question for a lot of people. It’s a discussion of spiritual freedom versus religious rules. The Bible is very specific in pointing out that the law does not save you, it merely points out the need for salvation. Did Jesus die to save you from every sin, except for maybe drinking beer and therefore you must not drink beer? The only true way to heaven is to accept Jesus, and refrain from drinking beer!
But wait, Romans 14 also says...
But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.
So if drinking beer can cause a brother to stumble, is it then wrong to do so? Now we have the issue of drinking beer in public versus drinking it in the privacy of your own home.
Here are the questions I have...
First, what is the purpose of drinking beer? I must confess, I’ve never tasted a beer. But judging from the smell, you certainly don’t drink it for the taste. The Bible is very clear that we are not to be drunk.
Galatians 5:19-21...
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.
Ephesians 5:18...
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.
So is there a purpose to drinking beer aside from getting drunk? Is tipsy drunk?
Second, what about your testimony to weaker Christians and non-christians? I don’t honestly know the answer to this question. Will a non-christian be negatively influenced by a Christian they know who is drinking a beer? Some argue that the notion of non-christians watching and judging Christians by their actions is bunk. Others say it is a very purposeful and conscious action, while a third group say it is a relevant, but subconscious, observation.
Is drinking different than swearing? Technically it is not a sin. But does it cause a weaker brother to stumble?
The important thing to note with any topic like this is that you are going to be accountable for your actions, not me, not your pastor. If your decisions are going to cause someone to stumble, are you willing to be judged on your decision, and the result of it?
The answer for me is, it is not right for me to drink beer.
08.02.05tue
Romans 14 is used frequently as the chapter that answers the question for a lot of people. It’s a discussion of spiritual freedom versus religious rules. The Bible is very specific in pointing out that the law does not save you, it merely points out the need for salvation. Did Jesus die to save you from every sin, except for maybe drinking beer and therefore you must not drink beer? The only true way to heaven is to accept Jesus, and refrain from drinking beer!
But wait, Romans 14 also says...
But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.
So if drinking beer can cause a brother to stumble, is it then wrong to do so? Now we have the issue of drinking beer in public versus drinking it in the privacy of your own home.
Here are the questions I have...
First, what is the purpose of drinking beer? I must confess, I’ve never tasted a beer. But judging from the smell, you certainly don’t drink it for the taste. The Bible is very clear that we are not to be drunk.
Galatians 5:19-21...
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.
Ephesians 5:18...
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.
So is there a purpose to drinking beer aside from getting drunk? Is tipsy drunk?
Second, what about your testimony to weaker Christians and non-christians? I don’t honestly know the answer to this question. Will a non-christian be negatively influenced by a Christian they know who is drinking a beer? Some argue that the notion of non-christians watching and judging Christians by their actions is bunk. Others say it is a very purposeful and conscious action, while a third group say it is a relevant, but subconscious, observation.
Is drinking different than swearing? Technically it is not a sin. But does it cause a weaker brother to stumble?
The important thing to note with any topic like this is that you are going to be accountable for your actions, not me, not your pastor. If your decisions are going to cause someone to stumble, are you willing to be judged on your decision, and the result of it?
The answer for me is, it is not right for me to drink beer.
Taking The Bible Literally
The question is asked a lot, “is The Bible to be taken literally?” The Bible consists of 66 books, 1,189 chapters and over 31,000 verses. Humans communicate verbally through words in more than one way. One cannot expect that every word in The Bible should be taken literal, nor should one expect that none of the words should be taken literal.
If you read any piece of literature, you must use your own wisdom and judgement to determine which text is literal and which is figurative.
Some text is more obvious than others. For example, Matthew 5:29 says...
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
Obviously, The Bible is not literally telling you to gouge out your own eye. Rather, it is making a point that it would be better to lose your eye than to spend an eternity in Hell.
Take the literal parts literally, the figurative parts figuratively, and use common sense, experience, knowledge of language and grammar, and the techniques of hermeneutics to know the difference. Just like you do any time you hear or read any statement by anyone about anything.
08.02.04mon
If you read any piece of literature, you must use your own wisdom and judgement to determine which text is literal and which is figurative.
Some text is more obvious than others. For example, Matthew 5:29 says...
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
Obviously, The Bible is not literally telling you to gouge out your own eye. Rather, it is making a point that it would be better to lose your eye than to spend an eternity in Hell.
Take the literal parts literally, the figurative parts figuratively, and use common sense, experience, knowledge of language and grammar, and the techniques of hermeneutics to know the difference. Just like you do any time you hear or read any statement by anyone about anything.
Proving Jesus
Could it be that the man who walked our earth and called himself the Son of God, was actually telling the truth? How can we even know? There is an answer to be found in the Bible. I know what you’re thinking, of course the Bible says Jesus is the Son of God. But I am referring to just the historical record found in the Bible. Take out any spiritual aspects, and simply take the history as-is. Whether you choose to believe in anything else the Bible has to offer, the accuracy of its historical record is proven.
If you can’t accept that the Bible contains accurate historical records, then you might as well move along now.
In the Old Testament, there are more than 300 prophecies that came true regarding Jesus’ life and death. For one single person to match only eight of these, the odds are staggering... 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000! By comparison, the odds of winning the PowerBall is 1 in 80,000,000. For one person to fulfill 48 of these prophecies, the number becomes hard to comprehend – 1 chance in 10 to the 157th power (that’s a 1 with 157 zeros after it)! Add to that the 250 other prophecies and it becomes impossible for any other person except Jesus to ever fit that particular sequence of time and events.
Let’s assume that there was just this one guy who was not really the Son of God, but just really, really, lucky. This man decided he would go with the prediction and claim he was God’s only son. To go through with this ruse, Jesus had to suffer some of the worst torture a man has ever gone through.
To start, even before being crucified, Jesus was questioned by the High Priest. He was blindfolded and repeatedly struck in the face throughout the trial. At this point he had his last chance at backing out of this crazy story. Jesus knew what would come next of he didn’t change his story, yet he kept silent.
Jesus was then taken to Pilate and was beaten with a flagrum, or flagellum. This was a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather thongs with two small balls of lead attached near the ends of each. The small balls of lead produced large deep bruises that were broken open by the following blows. The skin of the back would hang in ribbons and was an unrecognizable mass of torn tissue. When it was determined that he was near death, the beating was finally stopped.
After a 650-yard walk to Golgotha, nails were driven through his wrists and his feet. When he was raised up, the weight of his body would cause the smaller bones in his feet to break as the force of his weight came down on the nail. After hours of limitless pain and cycles of twisting, joint-rending cramps, he died of asphyxiation.
To endure this torture just for a lie, no one man could possibly be this incredibly insane. Nor could any one person be this absolutely lucky... and no single man could be both.
08.01.29tue
If you can’t accept that the Bible contains accurate historical records, then you might as well move along now.
In the Old Testament, there are more than 300 prophecies that came true regarding Jesus’ life and death. For one single person to match only eight of these, the odds are staggering... 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000! By comparison, the odds of winning the PowerBall is 1 in 80,000,000. For one person to fulfill 48 of these prophecies, the number becomes hard to comprehend – 1 chance in 10 to the 157th power (that’s a 1 with 157 zeros after it)! Add to that the 250 other prophecies and it becomes impossible for any other person except Jesus to ever fit that particular sequence of time and events.
Let’s assume that there was just this one guy who was not really the Son of God, but just really, really, lucky. This man decided he would go with the prediction and claim he was God’s only son. To go through with this ruse, Jesus had to suffer some of the worst torture a man has ever gone through.
To start, even before being crucified, Jesus was questioned by the High Priest. He was blindfolded and repeatedly struck in the face throughout the trial. At this point he had his last chance at backing out of this crazy story. Jesus knew what would come next of he didn’t change his story, yet he kept silent.
Jesus was then taken to Pilate and was beaten with a flagrum, or flagellum. This was a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather thongs with two small balls of lead attached near the ends of each. The small balls of lead produced large deep bruises that were broken open by the following blows. The skin of the back would hang in ribbons and was an unrecognizable mass of torn tissue. When it was determined that he was near death, the beating was finally stopped.
After a 650-yard walk to Golgotha, nails were driven through his wrists and his feet. When he was raised up, the weight of his body would cause the smaller bones in his feet to break as the force of his weight came down on the nail. After hours of limitless pain and cycles of twisting, joint-rending cramps, he died of asphyxiation.
To endure this torture just for a lie, no one man could possibly be this incredibly insane. Nor could any one person be this absolutely lucky... and no single man could be both.
Can Evolution Really be Right?
A Scientific Fact is an observation or a piece of data. Every time an apple is dropped and it falls, an observation of gravity is made. Scientific Theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. There have been many theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity. In science, a Current Theory is the theory that has no equally acceptable alternate theory, and has not been falsified. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and every observation ever made either supports current theory or at least does not falsify it.
What do we have to propose evolution as scientific fact? The observation of fruit fly populations changing character in a laboratory? However, by definition, a fruit fly changing character is not a fruit fly evolving.
evolution
1 the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form
2 change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species
Stating evolution is a theory would be much more accurate than defining it as fact, a theory that attempts to explain where life – specifically man – came from. But as noted above, in science, a current theory is one in which there have been no observations made which contradict the theory, and every observation made either supports it or at least does not falsify it.
There are two main observations in order to support the theory of evolution, fossil record and molecular biology. Looking at the fossil record...
So must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
In the same chapter of The Origin of Species, Darwin also comments...
The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.
Darwin is even questioning why, if his theory is correct, is there no fossil record to support the theory? The number of intermediate species would have been inconceivably great, yet we can’t find one. Some argue that long ago we just did not have enough fossils to work with.
David Raup, Director of the Field Museum of Natural History – which has one of the largest fossil collections in the world – says this about our current supporting evidence...
We are now 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
250,000 different fossil species, the number of transitional species would be inconceivable, yet not one example of an evolutionary transition. How can it be, that if every living thing evolved from something more simple than itself, that we do not have one single piece of evidence, no observations, that support the theory? While these quarter of a million observations do not contradict the theory, they certainly do not support it.
But what of Molecular Biology?
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Forward facing, or binocular vision, is something that cannot be built up a step at a time. The human eye works by some 40 different parts functioning together. If just one of these is not present, the eye will serve no purpose. Each of these 40 parts has its own individual complex structure. For instance, the retina, at the back of the eye, is made up of 11 strata, each of which has a different function. Darwin recognized that the eye contradicts his own theory...
I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!
In addition, we can now look inside a human cell and observe the inner workings of this microscopic “factory”. Inside the cell is the Bacterial Flagellum Motor, which is a microscopically small hydrogen ion motor that turns at 100,000 revolutions per minute. It can stop in just a quarter revolution and reverse direction! It requires 40 components, 30 of which are unique to this motor. If even one is missing the motor will not function. To build this following the theory of evolution would be impossible. Each of the components required would be useless by itself, therefore would not survive. This is a complex organ which could not have possibly been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. This microscopic part of your body is a massive contradiction to the theory of evolution.
Remember, in science, a Current Theory is the theory that has no equally acceptable alternate theory, and has not been falsified. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and every observation ever made either supports current theory or at least does not falsify it.
The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one...who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. By definition, Intelligent Design is a valid and current theory that has yet to be falsified. Using the logic, “you cannot prove it is real therefore it is not”, does not work. Not only can you not prove evolution is real, we have evidence that it cannot be true. Yet we continue to state it as fact, and we teach it in our schools as fact. And we are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked for doubting the validity of it.
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that). – Richard Dawkins
Is it possible that Mt. Rushmore could have been created by erosion, wind, and rain? Yet a real-life, living, breathing human being with 206 bones and a heart that beats over 100,000 times a day is the product of billions of years of random accidents free from intelligent intervention?
08.01.26sat
What do we have to propose evolution as scientific fact? The observation of fruit fly populations changing character in a laboratory? However, by definition, a fruit fly changing character is not a fruit fly evolving.
evolution
1 the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form
2 change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species
Stating evolution is a theory would be much more accurate than defining it as fact, a theory that attempts to explain where life – specifically man – came from. But as noted above, in science, a current theory is one in which there have been no observations made which contradict the theory, and every observation made either supports it or at least does not falsify it.
There are two main observations in order to support the theory of evolution, fossil record and molecular biology. Looking at the fossil record...
So must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
In the same chapter of The Origin of Species, Darwin also comments...
The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.
Darwin is even questioning why, if his theory is correct, is there no fossil record to support the theory? The number of intermediate species would have been inconceivably great, yet we can’t find one. Some argue that long ago we just did not have enough fossils to work with.
David Raup, Director of the Field Museum of Natural History – which has one of the largest fossil collections in the world – says this about our current supporting evidence...
We are now 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
250,000 different fossil species, the number of transitional species would be inconceivable, yet not one example of an evolutionary transition. How can it be, that if every living thing evolved from something more simple than itself, that we do not have one single piece of evidence, no observations, that support the theory? While these quarter of a million observations do not contradict the theory, they certainly do not support it.
But what of Molecular Biology?
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Forward facing, or binocular vision, is something that cannot be built up a step at a time. The human eye works by some 40 different parts functioning together. If just one of these is not present, the eye will serve no purpose. Each of these 40 parts has its own individual complex structure. For instance, the retina, at the back of the eye, is made up of 11 strata, each of which has a different function. Darwin recognized that the eye contradicts his own theory...
I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!
In addition, we can now look inside a human cell and observe the inner workings of this microscopic “factory”. Inside the cell is the Bacterial Flagellum Motor, which is a microscopically small hydrogen ion motor that turns at 100,000 revolutions per minute. It can stop in just a quarter revolution and reverse direction! It requires 40 components, 30 of which are unique to this motor. If even one is missing the motor will not function. To build this following the theory of evolution would be impossible. Each of the components required would be useless by itself, therefore would not survive. This is a complex organ which could not have possibly been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. This microscopic part of your body is a massive contradiction to the theory of evolution.
Remember, in science, a Current Theory is the theory that has no equally acceptable alternate theory, and has not been falsified. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and every observation ever made either supports current theory or at least does not falsify it.
The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one...who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. By definition, Intelligent Design is a valid and current theory that has yet to be falsified. Using the logic, “you cannot prove it is real therefore it is not”, does not work. Not only can you not prove evolution is real, we have evidence that it cannot be true. Yet we continue to state it as fact, and we teach it in our schools as fact. And we are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked for doubting the validity of it.
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that). – Richard Dawkins
Is it possible that Mt. Rushmore could have been created by erosion, wind, and rain? Yet a real-life, living, breathing human being with 206 bones and a heart that beats over 100,000 times a day is the product of billions of years of random accidents free from intelligent intervention?
Separation of Church and State - Are We Being Lied To?
It is very common for people to speak of Separation of Church and State as something established in the constitution. However, if you read through the United States Constitution you will find there is only one sentence in the entire document regarding religion...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Nowhere in the above sentence is even an implication that church should not be involved in the affairs of the government, rather government should keep its hands off the church. Congress cannot establish religion, and cannot prohibit the exercise of religion. Likewise, neither does the Declaration of Independence make mention of any such separation (it does, however, mention who establishes man’s rights).
...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them...
Since there is no real documentation that suggests a separation of church and state, proponents of this thought have gone on to suggest that while our founding fathers were religious – simply because everyone went to church at that time – they certainly did not plant this nation on the foundation of religion, especially Christianity.
George Washington, our first President and obviously a signer of the Constitution, had this to say regarding religion and politics in his farewell address...
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.
Religion being one of the indispensable supports of political prosperity, and it would be anti-patriotic to subvert the pillar of religion and morality! Continuing...
And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Foundation: religion. Continuing, Washington makes this statement...
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.
But who is this God that Washington mentions?
What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ. – speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779
Similar statements can be found by other signers such as John Hancock, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll, and more, which I have included later. But I feel it’s important to go first to Thomas Jefferson, the man who is the poster child for separation of church and state. Jefferson comments on where man receives the rights that this country is all about...
Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of Nature, because necessary for his own sustenance. – Legal Argument, 1770
Interesting term, the Author of Nature. Who is this Author of Nature?
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?“ – Notes on Virginia, 1782
There is no question that Jefferson had differing opinions on God than many of the other founders. But he certainly seems to have some sort of belief in a higher being. But where does religion fit with government according to Jefferson?
I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man. – to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824
Religion a supplement to law. Once more from Jefferson...
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.“ – to Samuel Miller, 1808
Interesting that his statement here reflects the government leaving religion alone, not the other way around.
The fact is the foundation of this country was religion. Our founding fathers knew that morals, what is right and what is wrong, can only from an authority higher than man. They also knew that without a foundation of religion, morality would fail. Without morality, freedom would fail. And now that they are no longer here to defend their positions, we are being lied to. Removing the foundation of religion, and the God of that religion, is a dangerous position to be in.
It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here. – Patrick Henry in a Speech to the House of Burgesses, May 1765
The gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t get more plain that that. I close with this poignant warning from Charles Carroll, another signer of the Constitution...
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. – to James McHenry, November 4, 1800
The following are additional quotes from signers of the Constitution, all of which suggest a foundation in religion.
John Hancock:
...at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness... – A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775
John Adams:
The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity... I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. –- a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
Samuel Adams:
Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness. – Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778
Benjamin Franklin:
God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.
In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered... do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? – Constitutional Convention, June 1787
James Madison:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity...to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. – to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, 1778
Benjamin Rush:
The only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Christianity is the only true and perfect religion. – A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a School Book, 1798
Daniel Webster:
To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.
James McHenry:
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.
Noah Webster:
In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. – in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828
Patrick Henry:
The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor...and this alone, that renders us invincible. – Letter to Archibald Blair, January 1799
James Wilson:
Christianity is part of the common law. – Course of Lectures, 1824
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Nowhere in the above sentence is even an implication that church should not be involved in the affairs of the government, rather government should keep its hands off the church. Congress cannot establish religion, and cannot prohibit the exercise of religion. Likewise, neither does the Declaration of Independence make mention of any such separation (it does, however, mention who establishes man’s rights).
...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them...
Since there is no real documentation that suggests a separation of church and state, proponents of this thought have gone on to suggest that while our founding fathers were religious – simply because everyone went to church at that time – they certainly did not plant this nation on the foundation of religion, especially Christianity.
George Washington, our first President and obviously a signer of the Constitution, had this to say regarding religion and politics in his farewell address...
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.
Religion being one of the indispensable supports of political prosperity, and it would be anti-patriotic to subvert the pillar of religion and morality! Continuing...
And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Foundation: religion. Continuing, Washington makes this statement...
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.
But who is this God that Washington mentions?
What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ. – speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779
Similar statements can be found by other signers such as John Hancock, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll, and more, which I have included later. But I feel it’s important to go first to Thomas Jefferson, the man who is the poster child for separation of church and state. Jefferson comments on where man receives the rights that this country is all about...
Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of Nature, because necessary for his own sustenance. – Legal Argument, 1770
Interesting term, the Author of Nature. Who is this Author of Nature?
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?“ – Notes on Virginia, 1782
There is no question that Jefferson had differing opinions on God than many of the other founders. But he certainly seems to have some sort of belief in a higher being. But where does religion fit with government according to Jefferson?
I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man. – to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824
Religion a supplement to law. Once more from Jefferson...
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.“ – to Samuel Miller, 1808
Interesting that his statement here reflects the government leaving religion alone, not the other way around.
The fact is the foundation of this country was religion. Our founding fathers knew that morals, what is right and what is wrong, can only from an authority higher than man. They also knew that without a foundation of religion, morality would fail. Without morality, freedom would fail. And now that they are no longer here to defend their positions, we are being lied to. Removing the foundation of religion, and the God of that religion, is a dangerous position to be in.
It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here. – Patrick Henry in a Speech to the House of Burgesses, May 1765
The gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t get more plain that that. I close with this poignant warning from Charles Carroll, another signer of the Constitution...
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. – to James McHenry, November 4, 1800
The following are additional quotes from signers of the Constitution, all of which suggest a foundation in religion.
John Hancock:
...at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness... – A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775
John Adams:
The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity... I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. –- a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
Samuel Adams:
Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness. – Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778
Benjamin Franklin:
God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.
In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered... do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? – Constitutional Convention, June 1787
James Madison:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity...to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. – to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, 1778
Benjamin Rush:
The only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Christianity is the only true and perfect religion. – A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a School Book, 1798
Daniel Webster:
To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.
James McHenry:
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.
Noah Webster:
In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. – in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828
Patrick Henry:
The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor...and this alone, that renders us invincible. – Letter to Archibald Blair, January 1799
James Wilson:
Christianity is part of the common law. – Course of Lectures, 1824