In Rejection of Mediocrity

URGENT PRAYER REQUEST | FRIEND IN COMA

2006-08-10T22:30:00.000Z

On Monday evening, my good friend Drew was climbing a tree and fell 30 feet onto his head. He was unconscious and not breathing when they rushed him to the hospital. They were able to get him breathing again, but his brain activity was down to 3 (1 is death, 15 is normal). The ICU doctors operated Tuesday afternoon to try and relieve the pressure in his brain. They were successful, but the pressure rose again and they had to do an emergency surgery again on Wednesday. As of this afternoon, Drew is still in a coma in ICU, but his brain activity has increased to 7 and his breathing and bodily function is normal. The pressure in his brain has dropped to 10 (it was formerly 22). He is still in critical condition, but the doctors have decided to wait a day and a half to see where he is then. He is currently in a drug-induced paralysis so that he will not injure himself further (he has been thrashing around wildly despite his semi-comatose state). He has other injuries as well: a badly broken arm, one fractured rib, and a minor break in his back. Please keep him in your prayers. His parents are taking it very well considering everything. He has two younger siblings. Please keep them in your prayers as well. Drew is a sophomore in high school. Please keep praying. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

What is Noah's Ark Worth?

2006-07-04T16:56:00.000Z

Literally hundreds of books, websites, and even movies have been made about Noah’s Ark. Hundreds of presentations – but they have all been fiction. But I am here to tell you that “Noah’s Ark” has been found.

“And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.” Genesis 11:2

God’s Word gives us two clues concerning the location of the Ark that He commanded Noah to build to escape the Flood of Judgment. The first is that the ark “came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.” The second is that the location is almost due east of the “land of Shinar”. This is now northern Iraq. Noah’s Ark has been called a myth, a legend, and a fairytale. But Dr. Bob Cornuke, a Biblical archeologist who has led searches for many Biblical events and locations, believed God’s Word. Based on a few Biblical clues and the testimony of an army sergeant engineer during World War II named Ed Davis, he became convinced that the true location of the Ark was somewhere in Iran. Dr. Cornuke led an expedition to try and find Noah’s Ark in the mountains of Northern Iran along with such notables as Barry Rand (former CEO of Avis), the author and Christian apologist Josh McDowell, Frank Turek (co-author with Norm Geisler of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist), Boone Powell (former CEO of Baylor Medical Systems), and Arch Bonnema. They found a huge pile of petrified wood on the top of Mt. Sabalon at 15,300 feet above sea level – one thousand feet higher than Pike’s Peak in Colorado. The wood was darker than the surrounding rock and appeared to have been dyed black with pitch or some other dark substance. The long, hand-hewn timbers sticking out of the mountain were squared off at the ends. Pictures show that the timbers were between one and two feet thick. The pile is about 400 feet long and is surrounded by marine fossils that originated under water. Copyright laws prevent me from posting photographs here, but you can see a video and seventeen high-resolution photographs at www.arkfever.com. However, I do have terrible news for you. This find, incredible as it is, will not trigger a huge rush of converts to Jesus Christ. Some may be convinced by the preponderance of evidence. Oh, but the turnout will be small – very small. A famous atheist once said, “Even if they find a big boat up on Mount Ararat and drag it down Main Street, I wouldn’t believe that there was a worldwide flood. I wouldn’t believe that there is a God.” A famous man – Jesus Christ – once said that even if a man were to rise from the dead, people would still not believe. There were thousands of people before the Flood that saw Noah’s Ark for almost a hundred years. Yet only eight escaped the Judgment of God. Why will it be any different today? There is a judgment coming. Jesus said that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, the most perfect people on the earth, then we will by no means enter the kingdom of God. He said that all liars will have their place in the Lake of Fire that burns for ever and ever. "All liars" is pretty inclusive. It means Hitler. It means Stalin. But it also means Mother Theresa. It also means Oprah. It also means you and me and your next-door neighbor. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is only one name given under heaven by which men might be saved, and that is the name of Jesus Christ. He took the sin of the entire world on His shoulders two thousand years ago. The wrath God had for us was poured out on Him, and only by trusting in Him alone for forgiveness of our sins can we escape the wrath of God. Noah’s Ark is an amazing discovery that will bolster the faith of many and may even push some over the edge. But it is not a license to send a non-Christian an email and let “the evidence” do the rest. It will never replace the holy conviction of the Holy Spirit that comes from the Holy Law of God – the Ten Commandments. In Him, David S. MacMillan III This article was first posted at Regenerate Our Culture. It is part of the July 4, 2006 Noah's Ark blogburst.

Count to Thirteen

2006-06-27T01:53:00.000Z

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected them to another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle...."

If you are an average American reader, then it took you about twelve or thirteen seconds to read the foregoing quote from the Declaration of Independence. In that time period, twenty human beings who had never experienced the love of Christ died and went to Hell. A liberal estimate places the number of born-again Christians at somewhere around 7% of the world's population of 6 billion. One hundred and fifty thousand people will die every twenty-four hours. These statistics give rise to a few statistics that are even more interesting - and sobering:

In the time it takes you to change the dial on your car radio, 3 unsaved people die.
During an average TV commercial "hook", 22 unsaved humans meet their Maker.
While you take a shower (assuming that to take ten minutes), almost a thousand non-Christians die.
The average church service: 5,800 people go to Hell.
A youth group meeting in an average American church: over ten thousand people go to Hell.
During a Christian rock concert: a group of people equivalent to more than a thirtieth of the population of Washington, DC perish forever.

Do those statistics surprise you? They should at least make you think. Recently, an "evangelical" leader was quoted as saying, "When you are on an airplane, you should never witness to the person you are sitting next to." Ostenibly because they might feel "trapped". Fine. What are you going to tell God when He asks you, "I gave you two hours next to a person who desperately needed to hear My Gospel. As he left the airport, he was hit by a bus and slipped into a coma. He died a week later, never once coming out of the coma. Why didn't you witness to him?" It is said that only two things last forever: the Word of God and the souls of men. Every human being on this planet will spend eternity in either Heaven or Hell. If you are a Christian, it is your duty to share the Gospel with every single person you possibly can. Do not wait for God to tell you to witness; He already has. Remember that even though we are not judged by our works as Christians, we will still be required to give an account of every word, thought, and deed. Only what is done for Christ will last. Keep going until the net is full! In Him, David S. MacMillan III P.S. While you read this article, one hundred and ninety-six unsaved people died. From here on out, it's up to you.

The Politically Correct Presbyterians USA - Update

2006-06-24T02:36:00.000Z

Reader RC directed me to an excellent post on his blog in reference to the PCUSA's decision to include Mother, Child, Womb as a "reclamation" of the Trinity. I blogged about this in my last post here. The new push centers around the idea that the conventional Trinitarian view is somehow "outdated" and needs to be "reclaimed". Subsequent to that thread, Presbyterian Charles Wiley came up with a set of "rules" to create new versions of the Trinity - some of the results were "Mother, Child, Womb" and "Lover, Beloved, Love". I figured that under the same rules we could use "Hen, Door, Blanket" - but that's just me. One version that I hadn't heard about was shown me by RC at his post. This made me positively sick:

Rainbow, Ark, and Dove

RC made a very good point. As Jesus hung on the cross, bearing the sins of the entire world, separated from His Father, he didn't cry out "My Rainbow, My Rainbow, why have you forsaken me?" It is one thing to compare the attributes of Almighty God to a Rock, a King, or a Door. But it is another thing altogether to call the Holy Creator of the Universe "Rainbow", "Compassionate Mother", or "Lover". This is called sacrilege. That's a word that has been misused in the past again and again, but this is a time it can be pulled out of the closet, dusted off, and put to excellent use.

"From the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes are clearly clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, so that mankind is without excuse." They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever."

When we reject God's Law and interspose our own ideas about Him, suppressing the truth in ungodliness, we are setting ourselves up for His judgment. Don't believe me? Read Romans 1 and consider what has happened in mainstream "churches" like Anglicanism that has now ordained and made normal practicing homosexual "bishops". This isn't about denominational issues - this is about exchanging the Truth of God for a Lie. On which side do you stand? God has appointed a day that He will judge the world in righteousness, and He will require an account of your every thought, word, and deed. He says that a place has been made for whoever "loves and practices a lie" - that place is Hell. Eternity is a long time. If you died tonight, where would you be? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

What can we change now?

2006-06-23T00:16:00.000Z

Been listening to Way of the Master Radio. A lot. The Presbyterian Church USA recently met for a convention. A lot of churches are doing that lately. One of the resolutions that came up at the convention involved a benchmark of Christianity - the Trinity. The fundamental doctrine espoused in the Nicean Creed that the Godhead is composed of three individual, distinct persons/personalities with one fundamental essence and being: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Presbyterian Charles Wiley feels that the Trinity needs to be "Reclaimed". It is apparent from his writing that the "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" is really just an analogy but it is outdated so any analogical approach is good and we need to come up with more terms to express the Trinity. Et cetera. Mr. Wiley even has developed a set of rules to guide the formation of new Trinity threesomes.

We are able to draw from the well of Scripture to enrich the ways we speak of God and to God. This liberating approach also demands discipline. We cannot "pick one from column a, one from column b and one from column c," as if any three terms can express Trinity. Are there "rules" to be followed, then? Yes. In the same manner that grammar rules help us to be clear about what we say, the rules of Trinitarian language help us to be faithful to what we believe. In that spirit, I propose three rules:
The three terms must have an inner relationship.
The terms must either be personal or functionalÂthe two should not be mixed.
Functional terms cannot replace personal terms, but can amplify and enrich our understanding of God.

As might be expected, they have come up with some very far-out "versions" of the Trinity (this includes those on thePC-USAA website and a few others I have heard on this basis):

The One to Whom, the One by Whom, and the One in Whom we offer our praise
Speaker, Word and Breath
Overflowing Font, Living Water, Flowing River
Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb
Our Sun, Ray and Warmth
Lover, Beloved, Love
Rock, Cornerstone and Temple
The Fire that Consumes, the Hammer that Breaks, the Storm that Melts Mountains

Okay, the last one is not that bad, but it still should not be used to "Reclaim the Trinity". But "Our Sun, Ray, and Warmth"? And "Mother, Child, Womb"? Is it just me, or do I detect a little attempt to introduce feminism here? "Lover, Beloved, Love"? This is getting sticky here. God is not a big ball of fire in the sky that keeps us warm. He is not Mommy. And He is not the cosmic girlfriend/boyfriend either. He is an awesome, just, powerful Creator and Judge whose wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. Yes, God loves you. But it isn't a pampering love. I repeat, God is NOT your cosmic girlfriend with a human-shaped hole in His heart. The love that He has is a perfecting love - He sacrificed His life so that our debt to justice would be paid and we could grow to be like Him. Get it straight, Mr. Wiley. I am sure that you meant well. But this is too important to miss. If you want to find out more about how the Trinity "works", check out my article on the subject. So do you think that the PC-USA went overboard in voting to accept "Mother, Child, Womb" as a "Reclamation" of the Trinity? "PC" ... Politically Correct? How about Biblically Correct? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

The Final Solution to the Immigration Problem

2006-06-05T22:58:00.000Z

Story found at EnGadget.com.

Look. I have no problem whatsoever with immigration. Granted, you should probably speak English or at least want to learn how before coming to the U.S. of A., and you'll have to leave your flag behind you, but if you think about it all of our ancestors were once immigrants so a bias against legal immigration is just plain irrational. But illegal immigration is a different thing altogether. Rather than coming in like respectable people, illegal immigrants want to take our Social Security and our police protection and our governmental system (which, by the way, is the best in the world) and refuse to pay taxes to support it. All this while stubbornly refusing to learn English and hanging on to their own cultural flair to the exclusion of an American way of life. I am all in favor of electrified Constantine Wire plus land mines along our borders. If some guy comes to my front door, then fine. If he tries to jimmy his way in the back window, he will probably find himself full of buckshot. Honesty is always the best policy. But electrified fencing and land mines aren't particularly humane, so Texas (yee-hah!) governor Rick Perry has announced a revolutionary plan to solve the border crises that floods Texas will illegal immigrants every day. His idea: use the Internet and high-speed digital cameras to automatically create thousands of unpaid border control agents across the United States. Perry estimates that the system would cost about $5,000,000, a small price to pay in exchange for the power would be created. Voyeuristic web surfers would be able to view live streams of the Texas-Mexico border 24/7 and have a toll-free number to report illegals trying to enter. This is all part of Perry's $20 million plan to secure the Texas border without any federal help. Sounds good to me! Texas forever! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Why Repeat After Me? Figure it out for yourself!

2006-06-03T01:55:00.000Z

A few days ago, one of my readers left a comment that referred me to a blog called "GoodMath where one more liberal evolutionist had written a post attempting to debunk another one of Dembski's speculations. Of course, the speculation of Dembski was in no way related to my personal beliefs, but that didn't stop the reader! Rather than try and defend Dembski, I pointed the reader - and the author of GoodMath - to one of my posts that starts from the ground up in explaining a particular piece of scientific evidence that supports the idea of a Creator - namely, the formation of life. The post uses only mathematics, common sense, and data from the secular Nature magazine. Trying to be fair, I also left a comment on the GoodMath site referencing my post - in case he wanted to try and debunk it. Which he promptly tried to do. My initial argument was pretty simple: the odds for the formation of the simplest possible reproducing, living cell (from the Nature article) by random chance are greater than the most improbable set of odds in this universe. By definition it is therefore impossible for the simplest possible reproducing, living cell to arise by random chance. His "rebuttal" was this: typing a random string of keys and calculating the odds of getting that particular result. Even though the odds are greater than 1 in 10⁸⁰, it still happened, right? I wonder what is wrong here. . . . I already have a pretty good idea what the matter is with this obviously flawed argument. Care to guess? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Is Ultimate Frisbee a No-Contact Sport?

2006-06-02T22:27:00.000Z

Nope. Not for me at least.

Ultimate Frisbee, for those of you who are so unfortunate as to have never played it, is a variation on a game of American football played with a Frisbee disc. The object is to pass the disc forward, backward, or sideways down the field and into the end zone for a touchdown. The catch is that when you have the disc you cannot move. If the disc touches the ground, the other team immediately takes possession. Because of this game's versatility, ease of play, and relative safety, it is extremely popular with many colleges and youth programs. It is the "official sport" of TeenPact. However, I found out the hard way on Memorial Day evening that Ultimate is not really a no-contact sport. At least it isn't when you are:

Playing at night
With a Disc Golf disc instead of an Ultimate Frisbee
On wet grass
On a small field
With 11-year-old girls who don't know how to throw a Frisbee

As my team advanced up the 10-or-so meter field, one of my sister's friends caught my pass and found herself blocked by another player. So, she decided to pass it to me. We were playing with a disc golf putter. Not only is this disc much harder to catch, but it also weighs between a quarter and a half a pound and is much more compact than a traditional frisbee. And, it was thrown at six feet in the air from only a few yards away at a speed that I didn't know the girl possessed. And I am six feet - and three inches - which places my eye level at approximately six feet in the air. Needless to say, I ended up in the Emergency room at 2 AM the day after Memorial Day with blurred vision, a bleeding face, a black eye, difficulty focusing or moving my eye, and a really bad headache. Plus sensitivity to light in both eyes and a host of other minor aches and pains - including the whiplash I got when the impacting frisbee made my neck snap back and threw me to the ground. One word: Ouch. Just a little update on the life of David S. MacMillan III....

Despite my aching head, I will be making a few more posts in the near future. They will tackle such tough subjects and questions as:

Do angels "live" in time or eternity?
Why this unscientific rebuttal is really quite absurd and depressing.
The Final Solution to the illegal immigration problem - you?
The discussion over my last post.

One thought to leave you with. So many high-level theologians are saying today that "The Gospel needs to be more relevant to the culture today." This is patently absurd. But hey! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here's relevant:

Yo: REPENT!

In Him, David S. MacMillan III

I Don't Believe in Sermons

2006-06-01T01:09:00.000Z

In the first century AD, the followers of Jesus Christ met mostly in homes for meals and fellowship, and spoke publicly in synagogues and marketplaces only to portray the message: "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!" The informal home assemblies focused on edifying the believer, strengthening his or her faith, and equipping each person to more effectively share the Gospel and live for Christ. Teaching varied greatly depending upon the audience. In a Christian environment, believers encouraged one another with the Scriptures, the letters from the apostles to the churches, and with the promise of God's grace. However, in a secular environment Christians preached the law of God and the terrible reality of His righteous judgment on those who rejected Jesus as their Messiah. Their purpose in these settings was to bring unsaved people to a knowledge of their sin and a knowledge of the Gospel. The Biblical way of "sermonizing" was Law to the proud, Grace to the humble. Now, skipping forward 1900 years. . . . Today's "sermon" follows a much different tack. Generally a pastor is preaching to an audience that has both Christians and non-Christians in it, so he must try and appeal to both crowds equally. The mixed group, however, prevents him from using the law - it would confuse and condemn the Christians - or from speaking about grace - it would be "foolishness to those that are perishing" (1 Corinthians 1:18). So today's sermon is forced into a tight mold that constrains it from displaying the true Word of God. A "good" pastor today will usually give a watered-down version of Grace:
God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. If you are a Christian, come up front! We can help you to live God's wonderful plan even more. If you aren't a Christian, you need to ask Jesus into your heart so that you can start living God's wonderful plan! Either way, come down to the altar and pray with one of our qualified advisors!
Sound familiar? Sadly, attempts to cater to a mixed crowd has turned the Gospel into a "contemporary" message of happiness and contentment through saying "the prayer". No wonder most Americans live like Pollyanna. Organized religious Christianity has done much for the Gospel - but it really has not done much good. Rather than equipping believers and saving the lost, it has presented an unbiblical "Jesus message" that is producing greater and greater numbers of false converts every day. No where in the Bible do we find one of the apostles saying, "Pray this prayer with me and Jesus will come into your heart." Nor do we find the "life enhancement" message so prevalent in our "Christian" culture today. Remember: Law to the proud, Grace to the humble. Jesus changed His message based on who He was speaking to. Why shouldn't we? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Letter to the Editor - Truncated!

2006-05-29T23:20:00.000Z

A few days ago, I came across this post over at Agent Tim's Blog. It spoke about a letter to the editor that was published in the Daily Record on May 21. The writer of this letter, Jeffrey Huppert, claimed among other things that America was not a Christian nation and that most if not all the Founders were deists. Naturally, I had to set the record straight. I sent the following letter in to the Daily Record, but they truncated it quite a bit when it was actually published. Oh well! I got at least part of the word across.

While surfing the blogosphere, I came across a link to a letter to the editor in the Daily Record titled "America not a Christian Nation". I would appreciate it if certain people would take the time to get their facts straight. The only accurate statement in the letter was the opening sentence: "A recent letter claimed that the United States was founded on Christian thought." Jeffrey H., the reader who penned (or typed) the letter, apparently believes that the thousands of quotes from the Founding Fathers expounding upon the attributes of Jesus Christ are somehow irrelevant to the question of whether any of the Founders were Christian. I suppose that these letters, treatises, and speeches are the result of a massive conspiracy by the incorrigible Republicans to fool all the innocent populace. Mr. H. states that "References to gods and religions are purposely left out of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as all amendments." This absence of direct reference to God in the articles of governmental arrangement obviously proves something. I'm just not sure what. I suppose that Mr. H. has never read the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the United States. It states expressly that the inalienable rights given to men by Creator God form the basis for all government - and especially the United States government! And it gets worse. "The founders wanted government to leave religions alone and equally wanted religions to leave government alone. [...] Neither Franklin, Washington nor Jefferson believed in a personal God." It is becoming increasingly obvious that fewer and fewer people know how to accurately examine source documents. In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for the public schools of Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Likewise, Washington claimed on May 12, 1779, that what children needed to learn "above all" was the "religion of Jesus Christ," and that to learn this would make them "greater and happier than they already are". During the winter of 1777 in Valley Forge he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian". Jefferson was another Founder who supposedly lacked belief in God or Christianity. And yet he himself stated "I am a real Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." The very word "Christ" means Savior or Messiah. In the words of David Barton of Wallbuilders Ministries: "Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven." Please get your facts straight. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

You can view the truncated version here, but they left out most of the best part. Phooey. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

NewsFlash: TeenPact Primary Elections!

2006-05-26T22:59:00.000Z

Breaking News Last night, the TeenPact primary election ballot for the 2006 National Convention opened up for absentee voting! If you have ever attended a TeenPact 4-day State class, you are eligible to vote. Here's how it works: Go to http://teenpact.com/elections/primary_parties.html and select your party. Each year, TeenPact chooses a hot political topic and creates several parties with different platforms in order to divide the candidates up. This year, the subject was illegal immigration, and the three parties were More Minute Men, Christian Amnesty, and Bush Guest Worker. The More Minute Men party is clearly the best choice. Why? Not only are all the cool candidates running in this party, but this is the only party that can include the proper response to the illegal immigration problem: snipers and land mines. Understand, I have no problem with immigration; our ancestors all came here as immigrants at one time or another. But I do have a big problem with illegal immigrants who seek to leach money out of our government without paying taxes. So, when you go to the elections, select the "More Minute Men" party. For the presidency, vote for Daniel Monplaisir and Anna Boyles. They are undoubtedly the best candidates for the presidency. For the Senate and House of Representatives, I can only suggest that you vote for Chip Cocks for Senate and Paul Martin for the House. They both staffed my TeenPact state class this last year and are really great guys. And Chip is awesome at Ultimate Frisbee, too. . . . So get out and VOTE! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

A Calm Reflection on the Da Vinci Code

2006-05-21T02:03:00.000Z

A quick Google search for "combat, attack, unbiblical, or false Da Vinci Code" just turned up almost ten million hits. Organized religion has definitely come out in force against this particular "heresy". Yesterday marked the premier of the film production of Dan Brown's bestselling novel, The Da Vinci Code. Today, millions more Americans went to see the action-packed thriller that has truly captivated the minds of everyone - whether they be for it or against it. According to a statistic from an article by Rod Martin, of the 45 million people who read the book, ninety-five percent state that it has not caused them to change any of their beliefs or religious perspectives because of the book’s content. In other words, this book will probably not have a terrific impact on the average person who already has some set religious ideas. Nevertheless, I joined the hype this afternnoon by placing 50 $10,000 bills in car windshield wipers at the local theater. These slightly oversized bills have an image of Mona Lisa on the front:This gospel tract in disguise is good because it does not attempt to go through and debunk each and every of the numerous factual errors in The Da Vinci Code. Rather, it takes what I would consider to be a more biblical approach; the back of the bill is as follows:
One of the most amazing claims of The Da Vinci Code is that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and she then became the most important of the apostles. If this is true, then the New Testament cannot be trusted, and its entire inspiration is in question. Did you know that... [read more]
Read it. Rather that attacking the book and the movie, the tract affirms the authenticity of the Bible and challenges the person on the basis of their conscience. It closes by showing The Da Vinci Code for what it really is:
If you choose to ignore the Bible's warning, and instead believe the fantasies of The Da Vinci Code, then be aware that you have joined the "Elvis is Alive!" crowd. You've included yourself in the ranks of the wide-eyed and faithful tabloid customers. The choice, however, is yours. It's your eternity.
A great tract. Like I said, the entire parking lot was peppered with them - while the film was showing. So when everyone came out they had $10,000 with Mona Lisa on the front under their windshield wipers. Hee hee hee. When we were about eighty percent done, one of the employees (who happened to be an old friend of mine) came out and asked us if we had a permit to do what we were doing. I told him that since we weren't trying to sell anything, we didn't need a permit - and gave him a copy for the road. He read through the whole thing and went back into the theater and showed it to the other employees. What do you think a good response is to this phenomenon? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

God is Not a Christian!

2006-05-16T23:55:00.000Z

"God intended us to live in harmony with God, with one another, with the rest of God's creation. God's dream was shattered by sin. The alienation just got worse, reaching a kind of climax in the scattering of the peoples in the story of the Tower of Babel when human community became impossible because humans could no longer communicate in a common language. "Jesus, it appears, was quite serious when he said that God was our father and that we belonged all to one family, because in this family all, not some, are insiders. None is an outsider Â black and white, yellow and red, rich and poor, educated and not educated, beautiful and not so beautiful, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, all belong, all are held in a divine embrace that will not let us go Â all, for God has no enemies. "I have said that God is not a Christian. Some people chewed me up for saying that, but I believe it. Some like to think that we Christians have the duty of protecting God. But I wish these people could meet the Dalai Lama. He is a holy person, incredible. We are the ones who keep trying to put limits on God, but God gives the incredible gift of grace."

"Bishop" Desmond Tutu has made a very - obvious - point. Of course God is not a Christian. God is Christ. Apparently, when man sinned, God was tearing His hair out trying to figure out what to do. It crushed His dream! No, the Bible says that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. The plan of redemption was God's plan from the beginning because it would result in the maximum glory to Him. And apparently God has no enemies. I suppose, then, that these verses don't mean anything:

"May God arise, may his enemies be scattered; may His foes flee before him." (Psalm 68:1) " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' " (Matthew 22:44)

I am not the one who is saying this. God's Word is the defining factor here. Where does the Bible say that "Buddhists, Hindus, [and] atheists" are held in God's "embrace"? The Bible says that if you have not called on the name of Christ, you are condemned already! God's Word tells us that "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is one name given under heaven by which men can be saved." (Acts 4:12) This is not about my opinion. The fact is, by trying to "not condemn" people (a philosophy that I am sure Mr. Tutu would adhere to), we are in faccondemningng them to Hell. If we are too chicken to tell people what God's Word says, then we are sending them to Hell in a handbasket. So do you think I am being too harsh and this guy is pretty close to the truth? You tell me. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Two Sides to Every Story?

2006-05-12T20:44:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

The Momma of All Tests

2006-05-06T01:13:00.000Z

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

Design vs. Science?

2006-05-02T22:29:00.000Z

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

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

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

Just a Quick Thought. . . .

2006-04-30T02:15:00.000Z

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

Witnessing Tips from the Pros!

2006-04-29T01:48:00.000Z

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

The Big Apple Clings to Traditional Values

2006-04-28T22:34:00.000Z

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

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

Improbable versus Impossible: Is ID an argument from incredulity?

2006-04-27T02:09:00.000Z

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

Observing the Unobservable: Can Science Prove the Supernatural?

2006-04-25T02:34:00.000Z

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

Reader Feedback: What Makes Christianity True?

2006-04-24T01:51:00.000Z

Reader Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urgent Prayer Request for Tomorrow

2006-04-23T02:33:00.000Z

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

I’m real excited to be up here testifying today. I know that [our pastor] wants people to come up and not just tell how we came to Christ, but what God is doing right now in our lives. Recently, something happened to me that has really rekindled my walk with God in the area of soul-winning. I once heard a kid get up to give his “testimony” at a youth thing and he said something like this. “I don’t really have a testimony. I mean, I didn’t get saved from drugs or alcohol or anything like that. I guess I just grew up in a Christian home and always knew the Bible and the plan of salvation from as far back as I can remember, and I probably made a conscious decision for Christ when I was pretty young. So I don’t really have a testimony.” Well, that kid didn’t realize it, but he just gave his testimony. I am in about the same position that kid was in. I’ve been a “Christian” as long as I can remember; my earliest recollection of a conscious decision was probably when I was about 3. But as I have grown older, I have realized more and more the importance of sharing my faith. But we have a problem with current evangelistic thinking. People haven’t been raised knowing the Scriptures, so like Corinthians says “. . . the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Currently the church “fall away rate” is 80 percent. What I mean by that is that for every 100 decisions we get in churches – every 100 people who come to the altar and pray “the prayer” – 80 of them never come back. Our churches are producing backsliders at an alarming rate. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that this isn’t working! Who here has heard of Kirk Cameron? He is an actor who played in the TV show Growing Pains and in the Left Behind movies. He has a ministry on the Internet and the Radio based on witnessing the way Jesus did. Appropriately, his ministry is called “The Way Of The Master”. In Mark 10, we get a great look at how Jesus witnessed to people. A rich young ruler ran up to Jesus, got on his knees, and asked, “What must I do to inherit eternal life? First, take a look at what Jesus didn’t say: “You’ve got a God-shaped hole in your heart that only God can fill. Pretty soon here, I am going to go die on a cross. If you just say this prayer and REALLY mean it, you’ll go to heaven when you die.” Instead, Jesus asked the man, “Why do you call me good?” When Kirk Cameron is speaking, he says that this part made him do a double-take. You know, maybe Jesus could have used a friendship evangelism course. What Jesus did was correct this man’s understanding of what “good” is. He pointed him to God’s standard for goodness: the Ten Commandments. You see, these days we have a major problem. People think that they are basically good! But the Bible says that everyone has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. So what can we do to show them that they need to be converted? Psalm 19 tells us that “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” What is perfect and converts the soul? The LAW. Galatians says that the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The law doesn’t help us, it just leaves us helpless. We are saved by grace, but the law shows us that we are filthy, dirty, and in need of God’s cleansing. Now compare this to the current way that a lot of churches evangelize. Many huge mega-churches like to tell people things like this:
There is much more to life than the same old daily routine; but you have to think big. God wants to increase you! Believe God for promotion and He will take you to new heights.
I think maybe Paul should have listened to this kind of preaching. Think about it! Paul didn’t need to go through all those shipwrecks, imprisonments, scourgings, or stonings. He just should have “believed God” for an enjoyable life, right? That’s very nice. But it isn’t the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s the Gospel of Second Hesitations. Think about it like this. Let’s say that you are the flight attendant on a plane flying at 25,000 feet. You want to convince one of the passengers to put a parachute on. You can do this two ways. First, you can tell him to “Put this parachute on; it’s going to improve your flight. Your coffee will taste better, and your chair will be more ergonomic.” The guy will be pretty confused at first. How will a 50-pound parachute on his back improve his flight? But if you’re a really good salesperson, you might be able to sell it. He puts it on. He is pretty uncomfortable at first, but he remembers that you told him the parachute would “improve his flight”, so he consoles himself. Before long, the other passengers start laughing at him. He is getting more and more upset. He can’t even taste his coffee ‘cause he’s hunched over in his chair, and his back is starting to ache. Angrily, he rips the parachute off and slams it on the floor. As far as he’s concerned, it will be a long time before someone gets one of those things on his back again. But there is another approach that will be more effective. Try telling the man that in a few minutes he will be jumping 25,000 feet out of the plane, and that “this parachute” is his only hope of survival. He won’t notice the weight on his shoulders or the other passengers laughing at him. Rather, he will be grateful to you and to the parachute because he is imagining what would happen if he jumped without the parachute. Instead of telling people that Jesus will improve their flight, we should be telling them about the jump to come! If we do this, people will run to Jesus! The Bible tells us to FLEE from the wrath to come! God commands “all men to repent because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in wrath”. If a person comes to Jesus with the focus on peace joy and happiness without having understood that they are being saved from CERTAIN death ... they won’t find any peace! Peace and joy are legitimate fruits of salvation. But that should not be the drawing card for Jesus. Remember Psalm 19: The LAW of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. People have to understand that everyone has lied, stolen, and blasphemed, and this makes them guilty in God’s eyes regardless of how they see themselves. So the next time you want to witness to someone, ask them whether they think they are a good person. Then, show them to the Ten Commandments. Have you ever lied, stolen, or lusted? Ever had hatred in your heart? I must confess that I have. In God’s eyes we are ALL lying, thieving, murderous, adulterers in our heart. Now remember that we aren’t condemning anyone. Timothy says that everyone is condemned already; the Law just shows people that they really are helpless without Christ! So now, with every eye open, and no quiet music playing in the background, I would like to ask each and every one of you to examine yourselves. Philippians tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling – not work for our salvation, but examine ourselves to see whether we are really in the faith. God has appointed a day that He will judge the world in wrath. But rapists and murderers aren’t the only ones who will be judged. If you have ever lied, stolen, dishonored your parents, or failed to put God first at any time you are also guilty of breaking God’s laws. We all deserve Hell. But isn’t it amazing that God had a different plan! He sent His Son Jesus to die a horrific death on a bloodstained cross, to take our punishment on Himself. It is ONLY by trusting Christ for salvation from Hell that we can escape God’s wrath and have peace and joy through Him. Thank you so much.

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

More Data in the Israel Debate

2006-04-22T02:32:00.000Z

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

The New Axis of Terror

2006-04-21T02:01:00.000Z

Breaking News

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

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

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

When Democracy is Anarchy. . . .

2006-04-20T02:22:00.000Z

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

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

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

Jesus: Never Convicted

2006-04-16T13:46:00.000Z

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

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

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

2006-04-15T01:34:00.000Z

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

Paper Waffles and Marshall University: Is there a connection?

2006-04-14T02:04:00.000Z

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

Get Christ Out of Schools!

2006-04-12T01:21:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

"Random" Mutations: Designed?

2006-04-09T23:58:00.000Z

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

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

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

Life Is Fragile - What are you doing?

2006-04-08T20:53:00.000Z

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

A "Missing Link" Is Found - And Lost

2006-04-08T03:15:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

Christ On Ice? Part II

2006-04-07T01:59:00.000Z

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

In order to make the case, let's refer to the original story, shown in John 6:16-21:
When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were frightened. But he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid."
Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.
In this passage alone, we see the key evidence aqainst the ice-theory: "The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing." Also, we can see that this ice is affected, in part, by depth. According to John 6, "they had rowed about three or four miles [out]."
So, really, it's futile to believe this idea. A more detailed account (of the same event) in Matthew 15, states:
And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind,[d] he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me." Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
Here, again, we have more evidence against it. Peter steps out (in faith) and seeing the wind (again, no calm water), he loses his faith and begins to sink. Jesus, coming to the same spot, pulls him up onto the surface of the water once more and helps him to the boat. The point in this? In order for the ice-theory to work, Jesus would have to be quite a manipulator of ice to move it around like that. But consider the evidence:
1) The water was rough
2) The wind was raging
3) The weather was warm enough for crowds to spend the day by him (read the first portions of Matthew 15 and John 6 and you'll find Jesus had been teaching the whole day prior).
4) Jesus was walking 3 or 4 miles out on the Sea of Galilee.
5) Peter was sinking.
Biblically speaking (and that's not taking the science into account because THAT is not my area of expertise), there is no grounding for this ice-theory in the Christian life.

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

What It Takes to Put Christ On Ice

2006-04-06T02:02:00.000Z

The article started off strong.

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

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

Self Esteem Is Linked to WHAT?

2006-04-05T01:03:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Him, David S. MacMillan III

No Other Name By Which We Must Be Saved

2006-04-04T01:47:00.000Z

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

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

Which side are you on?

In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Regenerate Our Culture: Issue 2

2006-04-01T21:20:00.000Z

Creation vs. Evolution

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

The Theory's Guide to the Idiots of Evolution

2006-03-31T02:09:00.000Z

In 1831, the young naturalist Charles Darwin sailed to the Galapagos Islands on the H.M.S. Beagle. He returned with a theory that shocked the world. In the early 1800s, genetics was basically limited to the understanding that "A tall pea plant and a short pea plant usually make a tall pea plant, but we don't know why" -Gregor Mendel. The mainstream scientific community held the misconception that reproduction did not change the descendant creature. But Darwin's observations put an end to this idea. Darwin noted that in the dryer seasons, the majority of the finch population on the islands of Galapagos had strong, thick beaks for cracking open dried-out nuts and the like. In the wet season, the average beak was generally finer and more adept to eating green vegetation. Our young naturalist supposed that perhaps the two different kinds of finch were not actually different species, but that perhaps there was but one strain of finch that adapted to changing environment. Kudos, Charley! You hit the nail on the head! Natural selection or microevolution exists due to the doctrine of "survival of the fittest". The better equipped an organism is, the more likely it is to survive and pass on its genes. The weaker genes are "naturally selected" out of the gene "pool", thus giving this phenomenon the name of "natural selection." Darwin had no concept of genes or DNA. He saw adaptation and assumed that this was a random process that was basically infinite in its abilities. Maybe, he thought, these finches and the eagles we have back home both descended from the same kind of bird-like-thing, but they have slowly adapted to become what they are today! Then the young man had a brainstorm. Or, shall we say, a braintornado. What if all the animals we see today descended from the same basic life form over millions and millions of years of adaptation! Why, this even explains away the need for God! I ought to write a book! And The Origin of Species was born, and with it the simple theory of universal ancestry and adaptation or MACROEVOLUTION. Darwin knew that he had no evidence as of yet from fossils to support his theory, but he was confident that fossils would be forthcoming as the science of paleontology grew. Unfortunately for Darwin and his theory, the study of genetics was on the forefront of scientific inquiry. And genetics showed that a "simple cell" was not simple at all. Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) defined each and every organism, and although some variation in DNA was possible, it was very limited. The natural selection Darwin had observed was the "cutting out" of inconvenient sections of the DNA that led to unfavorable traits. And cutting out bad parts cannot lead to Darwinian evolution. If a car factory does nothing but "remove bad parts", it will have rather light cars, but it will never spontaneously produce airplanes! Now, changes do occur in DNA. They are called mutations. Random copying errors. The scientific community latched on to this idea and proposed that perhaps beneficial mutations occurred that gave a particular organism its evolutionary edge. Then, natural selection kicked in and made sure that only this mutation would survive to the next generation: thus substantiating evolution! But we have yet to find a case of mutations acting in concert with natural selection to turn T Rex into a toucan or a monkey into me. And we also have yet to find a record of anything half-way to becoming something else set in the stone of the fossil record. Sorry, Charley. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Is the Roman Catholic Church Pharisaical?

2006-03-30T01:18:00.000Z

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "pharisaical" as follows:

"Marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness."

But we all know what the key word is: "hypocritical". Today's society enjoys labeling as "pharisaical" anyone who is caught saying one thing but doing another. This is apparent whenever some famous televangelist has an affair or when a politician exploits his religious affirmations for personal gain. Pharisees definitely have the reputation of being hypocrites; in fact, Christ labeled the teachers of the law as such on numerous occasions. But just because some Pharisees are hypocrites does not mean that all hypocrites are Pharisees. And it certainly does not mean that all Pharisees are hypocrites. What is a Pharisee, anyway? The word used in the NT comes from a Jewish root word: parash. It is not surprising that the word has nothing to do with hypocrisy (after all, the Pharisees would not have named themselves "hypocrites"). Rather, "parash" means "to separate, distinguish, or scatter abroad." This came from the separation that the high-and-mighty Pharisees had from the common Israelite. In Romans, Paul explains that the Law was created to show man his sin, and thereby his inability to get to God and his need for salvation. The Pharisees should have known this; Psalm 19 says that the Law of God exists to convert the soul. However, they deliberately distanced themselves and the Law from the common people and used it to control. Romans says that the works of the law can never justify a man. However, a close study of the actions of the Pharisees will show that they controlled the people by dictating what the law was and why one needed to follow it. This earned them many rebukes from Christ. John the Baptist even called them a "brood of vipers." So how does this relate to the Roman Catholic Church? In the same way that the Pharisees took the Law and made themselves its figurehead, the hierarchical system of the Roman Catholic Church has trapped the doctrine of Grace in a web of sacraments and ritual. The Pharisees told the people, "You must obey the Law, so do what we tell you." The RCC says, "Salvation is by grace through faith, but in order to get that grace you must obey us and follow all our rituals. Jesus said that the traditions of man make the Word of God useless. This goes for both Law and Grace. The Roman Catholic Church promises that we can obtain grace by doing what they tell us to do. But God's Word says that there is but ONE Mediator between God and man: Jesus Christ. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

TeenPact 2006

2006-03-22T01:39:00.000Z

Ahhhh . . . blogging again. As most of you know, I was at TeenPact 2006 State Class this past week. Everyone who was there agreed that it was the greatest TeenPact experience they had ever had. TeenPact is a one-week intensive government and civics training class. Students arrive on Monday afternoon and launch into the Capitol firsthand. TeenPact participants are introduced to the legislative process in several ways, the most notable being the mock legislature run by the staff according to the rules and regulations of the State legislature. Students bring bills and debate them in a parliamentary forum with strict operating guidelines. Freedom can also mean power. This year, the TeenPact alumni put their heads together and submitted a House Floor Resolution "respectfully impeaching" the Speaker of the House (a staff member) and instituting one of the alumni in his place. At first, the staff denied that the resolution was actually binding. But after a concerted effort on the part of the students and the aid of several friendly staff, the majority finally won over and put Michael Brantingham, a 4th-year TeenPacter, behind the gavel. Victory at last! Unfortunately, this all happened the day before TeenPact ended. So Michael only held the gavel for about ten minutes; not long enough to have any fun. Next year, we will try to set everything up the first day so that the students will be in control for the duration. And you never know: maybe I will be the new Speaker. . . . At night, many of the students stayed at Cedarmore Baptist Camp in Baghdad. Through evening praise-and-worship, lecture sessions, and the TeenPact official sport (Ultimate Frisbee!), the TeenPacters grew closer to the Lord and closer to each other. I would definitely advise everyone who reads my blog to attend TeenPact next year. The program is open to 14-18 year-olds. To find out more, go to www.TeenPact.com!

I have a ton of things to do this week, including school work, office work, Student Leadership Council duties, and writing an article for the second edition of Regenerate Our Culture. For those of you who have not yet checked out this awesome effort, I would advise you to do so now! Thanks to all my readers! I will be coming out with a few more articles in the next few days dealing with some very critical issues . . . keep checking back in! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Regenerate Our Culture has just launched!

2006-03-16T06:16:00.000Z

In my last post, I mentioned the new blog action, Regenerate Our Culture. This has just launched! Click on the link to check it out! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

In Absentia: TeenPact!

2006-03-13T05:57:00.000Z

This week, I will be attending my state's TeenPact Youth Leadership Camp. TeenPact has been a great part of my government curriculum, and I would encourage all homeschooled teens, civics-minded or not, to attend. But more on that later.

Regenerate Our Culture

There is a new blog action on the horizon! In just a few days (see above), Regenerate Our Culture will be launching! This admirable drive by such notables as Tim Sweetman and Alex King is a culmination of the blogability of 15 top bloggers. I am honored to be a part of this team. I will start writing for this group during their second issue on Creation and Evolution. Check out the goals of Regenerate Our Culture here! In the meantime: State Capitol, here I come! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

His Word is Exalted Above His Name

2006-03-08T02:21:00.000Z

Forever, O LORD, Your Word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)

In a world of knowledge, rampant with scientific inquiry, is it possible to really believe that the ancient Scriptures are reliable? Many would say no. In the first chapter of Matthew, a genealogy is given that traces Christ's lineage from Abraham to Joseph. In verses 8 and 9, the text reads

Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham,

. . . and so on. When we delve into the Old Testament, however, we find a disturbing inconsistency. It turns out that Jehosaphat indeed was the father of Jehoram, but that Jehoram's son was Ahaziah. And Ahaziah was not the only person left out. The line of the kings given in II Chronicles 21-25 has Jehoram, the father of Ahaziah, the father of Joash, the father of Ahaziah, the father of Uzziah. Many clergy have explained this apparent contradiction in this wise: the three kings that were left out of the record were notorious for giving honor to Baal rather than God. As a result, the Jews omitted them from the line of kings, and this record was what Matthew had as he wrote the Gospel of Matthew. This approach, however well-meant, ignores the fact that God divinely inspired Matthew to write his book. I Peter 1:21 tells us that Scripture came about as God spoke through man not the other way around. II Timothy 3:16 says that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." How, then, could the Bible be God-breathed if it omits names from a vital record? We recently received a book entitled "The Chronology of the Old Testament" from Answers In Genesis. This book explains why it was that these three names were left out in the God-inspired genealogy of Christ. If you look closely at II Chronicles 21-23, you realize that King Jehoshaphat married his son Jehoram to a queen named Athalia. The king did this in a fateful attempt to reconcile the broken nation of Israel; Athalia was the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. This attempt was direct disobedience to God's instructions to shun the house of Omri and Ahab. As a result, Jehoram's son Ahaziah only had half of the royal bloodline of David. The other half was from the house of Jezebel, Omri, and Ahab. It was crucial that Christ's bloodline be pure, so Ahaziah had no place in Christ's lineage. Ahaziah further compounded matters by marrying again into the house of Ahab. His wife Zibia bore Joash, who now only had 25% of the Davidian line. There is no way that he would be included. But with Joash, explained the Chronology of the Old Testament, things began to look up. He married Jehoaddan, a "daughter of Jerusalem". This brought the concentration of the pure blood of David's line back up to around 60% in their son, Ahaziah. This was not enough to get him entered on the record of Christ's ancestors, but it was a step in the right direction. Thankfully, Ahaziah married again into the house of David by taking another "daughter of Jerusalem", Jecoliah. Their son Uzziah now was over 80% Davidian; plenty of the right bloodline to gain entry. This is what the Chronology of the Old Testament says. And it makes a certain degree of sense. But my family was not absolutely sure, so we decided to take a closer look. My mom suggested that I look up the meaning of Queen Athalia's name in our hardbound copy of Strong's Concordance. So, I did. Athalia: Restrained by God. Wow, I thought to myself. Just as the right of entry into Christ's lineage was removed from the line of kings, the name of the offending party is "Restrained by God." I wondered what the other names in this colossal dinner party meant.

Jehoram, the king who was 100% Davidian: Raised up by God.
Ahaziah, the first king who was omitted from the lineage: God has held back.
Joash, the kind with only 25% of the Godly bloodline: God has burned [out].
Jehoaddan, the first queen on the way back to the pure bloodline: God is delighted.
Amaziah, the king who was 60% Davidian: God has increased.
Jecoliah, the queen whose son was the first person to get back in the Matthew lineage: God will overcome.
Uzziah, the first king who was back in "synch": The Strength of God.
Jerusah, the wife of Uzziah whose son was 90+% Davidian: God has possessed.
Jotham, the son of Uzziah who was 90+% Davidian: God lives on.

A rose by any other name. . . . Truly God's Word is forever settled in heaven! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

The Law of the Lord . . . WORKS!

2006-03-07T02:29:00.000Z

Today at the office, I had the opportunity to share the Gospel with one of my attorney's clients. The Way of the Master program has a great outline on how to share your faith in a few quick steps, so I ran them through in my brain and started in. The system used by Way of the Master is based on a variation of the popular acrostic, "WWJD". They have changed it just slightly; instead of "What Would Jesus Do?" the question is now "What Did Jesus Do?". I like it better that way myself. The first letter of "WDJD" stands for the casual question, "Would you consider yourself to be a good person?" Rarely will anyone be offended if you ask them this, as it affords them an opportunity to talk about themselves. Everyone enjoys doing that. The man I was speaking with, John (not his real name), told me that he was a pretty good fellow overall. "At least," he laughed, "I'm not a criminal or anything." So I moved on to the second letter in WDJD. "Do you think you have kept the Ten Commandments?" God's Word makes it very clear that the convicting power of the Law is necessary to show a person their need for salvation. I was punctuating my equilibrium with an occasional "Mind if I ask you another question?" and "I'm not trying to offend you or anything." I walked through three of the Commandments: No lying, no stealing, and no adultery. When I came to adultery (John had confessed flippantly to the first two) he assured me that he had never cheated on his wife or anything like that. I reminded him that Jesus said "If you look on a woman with lust, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart." He now grudgingly assented that he "sorta" had commited adultery, but "not really." I could sense that John had a pretty good idea that he was not perfect. So I moved on to the third letter in WDJD, "Judgement". I asked him, "If God JUDGED you by the Ten Commandments on the day of Judgement, do you think you would be innocent or guilty?" Generally, people will half-heartedly assent that they would probably be guilty, and then you can ask them whether they think they would go to heaven or hell. Once you have surmounted their philosophical obstacles and they have admitted that they are currently hellbound, then you can move on to the final letter: "Does this concern you?" Only then is it appropriate to share the good News of Jesus' death and ressurection with them. But John did not answer the question about whether he would be innocent or guilty. Rather, he told me that all his sins had already been forgiven. Okay, I thought. I guessed that perhaps John was already a Christian, but I wanted to make sure. I asked him how it was that all his sins against God had been so easily forgiven. He informed me that it was his priest who had forgiven all his sins. "I'm Catholic, ya know." This literally blew me away. Whenever I think about witnessing to someone who has been deluded by the Roman Catholic Apostacy, I immediately attack the Pope and perhaps the Mass, then I move on to prayers to saints and Mariolatry. But suddenly I realized why Catholics had been deceived! It is still the Law that convicts people of their sin, and it is their sin that drives them to the cross. And once people realize that no human being, including themselves and their priest, can forgive sins, they know that they must turn to Jesus for repentance. I realized all this in the blink of an eye, and as I assimilated it I asked him why on earth did his priest have the authority to absolve him of his sins? After all, I thought, the Psalmist said that "Against God only have I sinned" after he had taken another man's wife and ordered the murder of the man he had thus robbed, because it was God's Holy Law he had violated first. John thought for a moment, obviously puzzled. Apparently, it had never occurred to him to question why the priest could go between him and God when he could not. After a moment, he shrugged his shoulders and said, "I suppose he is closer to God than I am, so-" he trailed off as he tried to justify going to a priest for absolution when he had always heard how much God loved him. I told him that the Bible says that only God has the authority to forgive sins. The Roman Catholic Apostacy teaches that the Bible is the lowest authority and that the traditions and doctrines of "THE CHURCH" have more power than Scripture. So John quickly questioned whether the Bible could really be depended on when he had his very own priest telling him what the truth was. Unfortunately, John had to leave then. But he thanked me for speaking with him and said that we would continue the conversation at a later time. So pray for "John". Pray that the spiritual blinders that the Devil has placed on him will be removed, and that the Truth I was able to convery to him will implant deeply in his heart. And start evangelizing too! It is as easy as "WDJD!" I would encourage all of you to watch the videos that the Way of the Master has. You can watch them streaming at www.LivingWaters.com, but if you do not have a broadband internet connection, leave a comment indicating that and I will upload a few of the videos to the web so that you can download them for easier viewing. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Jobs, School, and Whatnot

2006-03-06T02:46:00.000Z

As most of my readers know, I am getting my associate's degree this as a certified paralegal through OakBrook College of Law. I just completed my second quarter a few weeks ago, and so my mother suggested that I make up a resume and send it out to a few different law offices in the hopes that one of them could use a blogger-on-his-way-to-paralegal. So, Thursday before last I typed up my resume with some help from Mom (she used to work in a job bank and is an expert at this kind of work) and addressed it to 6 or 7 different offices. I threw on the first polo I could find and headed into the job-hunting world. The first place I entered was the office of "R. Mitchell Berryman, Atty". As soon as I walked in and handed Mr. Berryman my resume, he told me that he had been without a secretary for three weeks and needed one right away, so could I interview right then? As you might expect, I was rather shocked. But I told him that my mom had a few errands to run with me but I would be back in a few minutes for the interview. Needless to say, I moved fast. To make a long story short, Mr. Berryman is a strong Christian and granted me the on-the-spot interview because the shirt I had randomly picked said "God Reigns". 30 minutes later, I walked out of his office with instructions to start work the next Monday afternoon! So now I am employed part-time as a secretary and legal assistant in the firm of Mitchell Berryman. I have great hours (1-4 PM, Monday-Thursday), and my employer attends the same church that my family used to attend years ago! Of course, this amazing opportunity has its downsides as well. As you all noticed, I was absent from the blogosphere last week. Since I was in my second week of my third quarter in my paralegal course and in my first week at my job, my day went from 6 AM to 10 PM without that many breaks. This has been my first real chance to relax and contact all my friends in cyberspace. This next week should be a bit better as I will have about an hour on the computer regularly in the evenings. So expect to see plenty of hurried but powerful blogposts! On another note, I will be moving this blog over to WordPress pretty soon. I am slowly customizing a decent template I found and will transfer over as soon as I can get it all set up correctly ... which may be a while due to the lack of time I have at the moment. Until next time, In Him, David S. MacMillan III

But Israel isn't Really God-ordained, is it?

2006-03-02T02:11:00.000Z

"Israel is controlled by a bunch of atheists. There is no reason why America should support that country!" I really never had a real good rejoiner for that one. At least, not until now. Read this excerpt from the epilogue of The Third Millenium:

In the Torah, Moses wrote (Leviticus 26:18 and elsewhere) that in the furture, whenever Israel sins greatly as a nation God will allow calamity to come their way. he will howver give them time to repent. If they, as a nation, do not repent after their warning period, then the remainder of their punishment will be multiplied by seven.
Over 600 years before the birth of Jesus, God used Ezekiel, a contemporary of Daniel, to show Israel her sin. In Ezekiel 4:3-6, God told the prophet to lie on his side for 430 days to signify the 430 years Israel would spend in exile for her sins. ANother contemporary of Daniel's and Ezekiel's, the prophet Jeremiah, predicted that the first 70 years of the 430 years would be a Babylonian exile (Jer. 25:11). That was Israel's warning period.
Sure enough, as predicted, Nebuchadnezzar came along and transported the Jews from Jerusalem to Babylon in 606 B.C. Then, 70 years later, Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon in 536 B.C. and said he would pay for the millions of Jews to go back to Jerusalem. But the Jews refused. Only 50,000 devout Israelites went back. The rest didn't want to interrupt thier businesses in Babylon.
This obviously made God angry, so take 430 years of exile, subtract 70 years of warning, and multiply the remaining 360 years times 7, as Moses instructed in the Torah. You will get 2,520 prophetic years of 360 days each (the Jews measured prophetic years with 360 days) = 907,200 days from the day Cyrus made his decree to return to Jerusalem, which comes out to May 14, 1948, the day Israel became a nation.

So never let anyone tell you that Israel should not be supported! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

A Froggy Situation

2006-02-23T21:50:00.000Z

The weekly science journal Nature reported an amazing factoid yesterday. They now have a "classic example" of Darwinian evolution in action! Its name is Bufo marinus (a cane toad). This fat, ugly, poisonous creature is the next straw that evolution is clutching. Why? Well, its legs are long. That in and of itself is not that amazing. But here is the clencher: the toads with shorter legs cannot hop as far! In a series of tests run by researchers from the University of Sydney, it was confirmed that the toads with shorter legs did not move as fast as toads with longer legs. "[The researchers] were astonished to find that the creatures can hop up to 1.8 kms (1.1 miles) a night during wet weather, a record for any frog or toad," said the Agence France-Presse in an article at Yahoo! News. "But even more remarkable was the discovery that the first toads to arrive at the front invariably had longer hind legs than those which arrived later." This particular toad has historically expanded its range by around 10 miles per year. However, a mutation has apparently destroyed the gene that prevents uncontrolled leg growth, so the lengthened legs are allowing toads to expand up to 30 miles per year. In order for Darwinian evolution to occur, there would have to be an actual increase in genetic material. Mutations are copying errors that result in a loss of genetic material, not a gain. Sorry, scientists. Next time, try learning the difference between natural selection (less capable creatures cannot pass their genes on) and Darwinian evolution (creatures increase their genetic material, sprout wings and feathers, and start flying). In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Are You or Your Loved Ones Soundly Saved? Part II

2006-02-21T20:32:00.000Z

If you have not read Part I of this post yet, please do so here.

After this, one came and said to Jesus, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" But He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into heaven, keep the commandments." The man asked Jesus, "Which ones?" Jesus said, " 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. (Matthew 19:16-22)

A man comes to you and asks "What should I do if I want to go to heaven?" "Yes!" you think to yourself as you pull the 'Roman Road' laminated calendar out of your wallet. "This is what I have been waiting for!" You explain that "Jesus can get you to heaven, and besides He will fill the hole in your heart you have always been seeking to fill and give you lasting fulfillment." Then you walk the seeker down the 'Roman Road' and lead him in a 6-point prayer that would make Billy Graham proud. But What did Jesus do? When He was approached by a rich young man seeking eternal life, the subject was not His impending death, burial and resurrection, nor how He could improve the man's life. Jesus, following scripture, went straight to the Ten Commandments and how they applied to this particular person. Jesus understood that it is God's divine Law which converts a person (Psalm 19:7), not a desire for personal gain or other ambition. The rich young ruler told Jesus that he had kept all the commandments in the law from his youth. Well, there he went breaking number 8, "Thou shalt not lie." Jesus had told him a few moments before that "No one is good except for God." This man had a pride problem that had to be conquered before the law could convict him of his sin. But it is a novel idea, is it not? Using the law, given before Christ in preparation for His coming, as a signpost to point a person to their intrinsic need for grace. A novel idea indeed, especially when you consider what Paul tells the Galatians in his letter to them:

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24)

That was simple. The law existed to point us to Christ so that His grace could save us. So what business do we have ignoring the message of condemnation in the law when bringing someone to Christ? "But we cannot condemn someone!" That is right. We cannot condemn them, because those who do not believe in the name of Christ have been condemned already! (John 3:18) Again, the law is used to convert the soul by convicting a person of sin (Psalm 19:7, Romans 7:7), and the resulting need for Christ is what drives them to repentance and to salvation by grace through faith. Our haughty, man-centered gospel of life enhancement is churning out unrepentant, false converts every Sunday morning because the participants never understand the real reason that they need Jesus! If the reason we seek the Gospel is for life enhancement, one of two things will happen. Either our life will not be enhanced the way we wanted it to, and we will become disgruntled and fall away, or our life will be enhanced and we will decide "I do not need Jesus any more!" and fall away. Either way, the life enhancement message produces false converts who will not inherit the Kingdom of God, because as Jesus said, "Depart from me, you accursed. I never knew you." (Luke 13:27) The theme for these two posts was taken from a new website called The Way of the Master. This site is run by Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and Todd Friel. I encourage everyone to take a good look at the vital message of this site. So now it is your turn. Use the Ten Commandments (can you even name them?). Get out there and win some souls the right way! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Israel, US, EU Sever Ties With Hamas-Controlled PLO

2006-02-21T00:32:00.000Z

Breaking News On January 26th, 74 members of the radical Islamic group HAMAS were elected as members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Parliament. This gives the terrorist organization a majority for the first time in PLO history. With the swearing in of Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Duaik as the Parliament Speaker yesterday (see image at right), the PLO is now controlled by a terrorist organization, making it an official terrorist state. In response to the abrupt shift in power, the U.S., EU, and Israeli governments have closed commerce with the PLO, Israeli interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert even going so far as to freeze $50,000,0000 in tax receipts which was to constitute almost a third of the Palestinian budget. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has begun a Middle Eastern tour cautioning countries against giving financial support to the Hamas-controlled government. What she fails to understand is that for Middle Eastern countries, Hamas policies equal Islamic policies which demand fanatic support from every Muslim. It remains to be seen whether the more moderate governments in the area will succeed in stemming the flow of cash to the terrorist's coffers. The less moderate governments have no qualms about supporting the PLO. Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told the Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal that "Annual financial assistance to Palestine is one way that Muslim nations can share the responsibility of Palestine." In other words, it is our job as Muslims to help you terrorists kill all the Jews. It is interesting to note that Saudi Arabia, the number one supplier of oil for the U.S., is the only Middle East country fulfilling its full promises of support to the PLO. The dollars you spend at the pump go directly to the pockets of Hamas, with the federal and state governments and the Saudi oil sheiks getting a buck or two in the transit.

With their cash flow thinning, the new, more terroristic PLO will revert to its old tactics of simple military might. The other leading party in the PLO, Fatah, will also be striving to regain power, and the only way Hamas will be able to curry favor and unite the country is to focus on what unites Palestinians: attacking Israel. Jerusalem Post columnist Barry Rubin (left) predicts that a shadowy Islamic group which consists of Hamas people but lets Hamas deny responsibility will emerge to claim "credit" for renewed full-scale military attacks on Israel. " 'Hamas will not attack Israel until it decides to do so, but it reserves the right to commit genocide against Israel.' " My prediction: with the new, overt terrorist control of the PLO, the blinders will be partly removed from the Israeli leadership. They have already broken off economic and political ties with the Muslim aggressionists and will begin to treat terrorist bombings as direct military attacks - unless, of course, they are fooled by a shadow terrorist organization as predicted by Mr. Rubin. This in turn will bring an end to the deceptive "Roadmap to Peace" plan and will trigger full military aggression from the boiling PLO government. Israel will be forced to respond with military rather than police force, and we all know where that will lead. So what is going to happen? Opinions, anyone? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Are You or Your Loved Ones Soundly Saved? Part I

2006-02-18T18:38:00.000Z

Disturbing statistics indicate that over 80% of professing Christians fall away from the faith soon after conversion. The International Church of Christ reports here that more than four out of five of those that are baptized leave church within months. The September 1977 issue of Eternity Magazine reported the results of an evangelistic crusade that involved 178 churches. Out of 4,106 decisions for Christ at the altar, only 3 percent joined a local church. That series of meetings created 3,981 backsliders! And this was almost 40 years ago! A more recent campaign reported a 92% rate of real conversions. For every hundred people who make a profession of faith at the altars of American churches, often less than 10 stay in a local fellowship.

Most of these statistics are taken from Ray Comfort's book, Hell's Best Kept Secret. How is it that our best methods of evangelism are failing miserably? As popular as the slogan "What Would Jesus Do" has become, I frankly admit that I do not like it. It allows people to create a Jesus in their own image, according to their own desires. Canadian Senator Marilyn Trenholme Counsell, in comments made during debate of impending same-sex "marriage" legislation, made the astonishing claim that Jesus Christ would have voted in favor of the legislation just like she did. "As a Christian, I often ask myself 'What would Jesus do?'" the senator stated. She answered with, "In this case, in this time, I believe He would say yes. After all, we have come a long way from Old Testament days when adulterers were put to death; and we have come a long way in our understanding of human sexuality." It is so easy for people to rationalize when asked what Jesus would do. So instead, I prefer to ask "What DID Jesus Do?" So, when we are faced with statistics that show 80-90% of converts are falling away, we should immediately ask whether our evangelistic methods concur with the words and actions of Jesus Christ. Since early in the 20th century, modern evangelism has centered around what Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort call the "life enhancement" message. In other words, the idea that "There is a God-shaped hole in you that only God can fill. You will never be satisfied unless you come to Jesus. So just admit you are a sinner and ask for Jesus, and you will be happy and joyful and fulfilled and rich and everything else you ever wanted!" The problem with this approach is that it is totally opposed to Scripture! In Matthew 24, Jesus tell His disciples that that the enemies of the Gospel "will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake." This is anything but a gospel of joy, peace, and lasting fulfillment! Psalm 19:7 says that "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul." How can this be? Haven't we always been taught that Jesus did away with the law of Moses at Calvary? Humans are not under the law any more, or so some would have us to believe. But in Romans 7:7, Paul tell us that "I would not have known sin except through the law." What does the Psalm say? "The law ... is perfect, converting the soul." How is one converted? Jesus said over and over that we are to repent of sin, not to "Try Jesus"! Let us now suppose that I walk up to a person on the street and tell him, "I have some great news for you! Someone you do not even know just paid a $25,000.00 speeding fine on your behalf! That is great news, isn't it?" The man would probably stare daggers at me. "Are you insinuating," he would demand, "that I broke the law? I have not been speeding, and I do not have a $25,000 fine!" Then, I would probably get a sock in the nose for my pains and the man would walk away. But let us suppose that I try this approach: "Excuse me, sir. I have some really bad news for you. Yesterday, you were clocked at 55 miles per hour going through a zone set aside for a blind children's convention. There were ten clear warning signs showing the top speed limit to be 15 miles per hour, but you ignored them all and went through at over three times the legal limit. What you did was incredibly dangerous, and a judge has levied a $25,000 fine on you." Now, if I tell the man his fine has been paid, he will be grateful. But if I omit the bad news, the good news will be foolishness to him. Likewise, if I tell someone that "Jesus died on the cross for your sins," he will be offended and my words will sound like foolishness to him (1 Cor. 1:18). But if I explain that he has broken God's law and is on his way to Hell first, he will be much more likely to welcome the Gospel with open arms. Or try this example. Two men are on an airplane. The flight attendant gives the first man a gigantic parachute backpack and tells him to strap it on. "It will improve your flight!" He is skeptical at first, but he puts it on as an experiment. The first man soon notices that the parachute prevents him from sitting upright in his seat. But he consoles himself with the thought that he was told it would improve his flight. Before long, however, the other passengers are laughing at him, and he is growing more and more uncomfortable. He gets up to use the lavatory and the weight almost pushes him to the ground. Disgusted, he rips the parachute off and throws it to the ground. Now he is "inoculated" against parachute-wearing, because after all "I tried it and it didn't work." The second man, however, is told to "Put this parachute on, because in less than 15 minutes you will be jumping 25,000 feet." He eagerly straps the backpack on, ignoring the weight on his shoulders and the ridicule of those around him. His only thoughts are for the jump to come. Telling someone to "Trust in Jesus!" without telling them about the jump to come is foolishness. Charles Spurgeon said that he preached "90% law and 10% grace." God law, the Ten Commandments, are necessary to show a sinner his need for God. Only when he is thoroughly convinced that he will stand before God guilty can he given the good news that Jesus already paid his fine. The message that Jesus will "improve your flight" is one of the most damaging messages ever created. We need to get back to the way Jesus taught. When the rich young ruler came to Him asking "What must I do to inherit eternal life," Jesus did not walk him through the Roman Road. He went straight to the Law: the Ten Commandments. More later. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Legislative Assistant

2006-02-18T17:20:00.000Z

This past week I worked 9 hours a day at my state capitol. As a result, new articles have been conspicuously absent (has anyone noticed?). This week, I am planning to write a few articles on evolution, the authority of Scripture, and what real salvation means. Keep checking back daily or load my RSS feed into your web reader. While you are waiting, check out a great new website, The Way of the Master. It is run by such notables as Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and Todd Friel. I encourage everyone to really take a close look at what they have to say! Thank you to all my readers who have left comments in my absence this week. God bless you all! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Attention from Answers In Genesis

2006-02-11T00:29:00.000Z

Today, Answers In Genesis published my article about my encounter with a biology professor at Dort College. Check it out! Just click here! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Sorry!

2006-01-28T16:33:00.001Z

My sincerest apologies for my slight hiatus from blogging over the past week. Between juggling my paralegal course, working on a website for the CHC Student Leadership Council, and designing a new jet engine that works equally well in space, I have simply had no time for the blog. But hopefully this will change. Yesterday I attended the 6th annual Men's Night Out at Porter Memorial Baptist Church in Lexington, KY. They had a very interesting speaker for the night: ex-mobster Michael Franzese. I will be making a few posts on his testimony soon. Until later. . . . In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Photos of Petrified Peach

2006-01-17T02:03:00.000Z

I promised in my last post to share some photographs of a petrified peach loaned to me by George. So, without further ado:

From the top, this looks much like an ordinary rock. Flat on one side, but still rather mediocre But take a look at the other side!

Here you can make out the distinct impression left by the peach pit. The discoloration on the left side is not a scooped-out portion of the rock; it is just a different color of stone.

This is a nice view of the basic peach shape. Note the bubbly depression in the top forward portion. Apparently, the peach half was discarded due to rotting, and the rot spread to the outer skin before petrification.

I am holding the peach half here to give you a better idea of the size and overall shape. It is composed of very hard, nonporous rock. However, the outside and the inner portion still show amazing detail when viewed up close.

So what do you think?

In Him,

David S. MacMillan III

Petrified Peach Squashes Long-Age Dogma

2006-01-12T02:43:00.000Z

In my last post, Katrina Victims Finally Come Home, I spoke about a family left homeless by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina that we are helping to move into their new house in my city. The youngest son, George (not his real name), showed me a chunk of rock that looked suspiciously organic in origin as we moved dresser drawers and other furniture. "Take a look at this petrified peach half I found, David! I dug it out of our backyard in Mississippi." I examined it, and sure enough this was all that was left of a peach that had been cut in half with a knife and thrown out for some reason. The features were preserved so beautifully that I could see the individual lines left by the peach pit in the flesh. I was going to post a photo on this site but I was unable to obtain it to take pictures. Perhaps I will post an image later. This family used to live near the mineral-rich Mississippi River delta. So I did some research and discovered that peaches originated in China and were not introduced into the Americas until colonists settled in Virginia around 1630. The appearance of having been cut by a very sharp object and its location near the Delta (which was not settled by Europeans until the 1820s) would make it seem that this peach was even younger than the 370 years old stipulated as a maximum by the first introduction into Virginia. We are generally told that petrification take hundreds of thousands or even millions of years as minerals slowly replace plant tissue. But obviously this peach was petrified less than 400 years ago and probably less than 200 years ago. Not only that, but the process was fast, judging from the intricate details now preserved in solid rock. Maybe the dogma of millions of years and long geologic ages is not that well founded. . . . In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Katrina Victims Finally Come Home

2006-01-11T01:38:00.000Z

My readers may remember the family I spoke of several months ago that lost their home in Hurricane Katrina. Since some of their relatives attend our local fellowship, this family has stayed in my city for around 4 months. The family consists of Mrs. Sarah and her two sons, Ryan and George (not their real names). Their father is on a police force in the Gulf area. I was able to help Ryan set up a website to try to help teens displaced by Katrina and Rita find out where their friends are. Mrs. Sarah is battling cancer and cannot drive, so our family was able to take her to and from her chemo appointments. Our families have grown close over the past few months. Recently we located a home for sale that the owner was willing to rent out. Its size and location was perfect for Mrs. Sarah and her family, so today we were able to move most of their belongings into their new dwelling. Everyone in this area has been extremely generous. A local carpet store gave hundreds of dollars worth of carpets to warm the new home free, and other businesses gave the family discounts and other things to help make the new house a home. Please thank the Lord for these generous people, and keep this family in your prayers. This is a hard time for them, but things are beginning to look up. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Bush Lied! Don't blame me, I voted 4 Kerry.

2006-01-09T22:25:00.000Z

Bumper stickers like the one above really show a lack of mental capacity. Especially the use of the word "lied". I can handle "Bush was wrong". After all, it is a free country and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But using the word "lied" . . . come on! One would have to think that the left would have gotten over it 15 months after the election. Wikipedia defines a "lie" as:

"A statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it."

So in order for someone to lie, they must believe or strongly suspect that their statement is false. I would assume that the bumper stickers proclaiming "Bush Lied" refer to his allegations of WMDs by Iraq. This, they say, was the reason we went to war and subsequently Bush lied to get us into war. Actually, we had ample reason to declare war on Iraq ever since they fired on our planes after the Gulf War. But since the liberals would never listen to that, I will meet them on their own grounds: the infamous WMDs. It is debatable whether there were actually WMDs in Iraq and in Saddam's power. Remember that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, especially when Saddam was warned repeatedly by France that the U.N. weapons inspection was coming. By going through the U.N., our inspectors waved a flag at the Iraqis advertising our intent to end their schemes long before we actually did any inspecting. And we did find "weapons of mass destruction", no matter what the media would have us to believe. Not only were many of Saddam's missiles too large for the range imposed by U.N. sanctions after the Gulf War, but our military also found warheads used to transport chemical weapons and chemical weapons factories. But again, the issue of whether there were any WMDs is irrelevant. The question is whether Bush thought there were any WMDs or not. And the answer to that question is an emphatic "YES!" Every intelligence force on the planet firmly believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him." (John Kerry, March 2003) "Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts chides the administration for waiting too long to make the case for invasion and do "the hard diplomatic work" of enlisting allies. But he says leaving Saddam Hussein "unfettered with nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction is unacceptable." (USA Today quoting John Kerry, February 2003) "Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling." (John Kerry, February 2003) "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oilrigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." (John Kerry, January 2003)

Senator Kerry was on the U.S. intelligence committee investigating the possibility of Saddam having WMDs. Kerry had access to the same information that President Bush had.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." (John Edwards, October 2002, emphasis mine) "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." (Bill Clinton) "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton. Emphasis mine.)

Need I say more? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

An Argument with Earth: Concrete 1, David 0

2006-01-08T19:11:00.000Z

Breaking News The Associated Crush

On-the-spot news sources indicate that yesterday at around 5 pm David MacMillan, author of the popular blog "In Rejection of Mediocrity", was at his suburban home watching his sister play with a small scooter. He walked up to and uttered the words which generally precede regrettable incidents: "Hey, watch this!" Moments later David found himself sprawled on the driveway. Somehow his balance had become slightly out-of-touch and as a result he catapulted over the scooter, catching himself on his left palm. Measurements indicate that a force of over 700 Newtons shot up his arm and across his bent elbow joint, leaving him lying in pain on the concrete. David complained of intense nausea at the time of the accident and a subsequent limited range of radial motion in his injured limb. Little was thought of the incident until later at around 9 PM, when news trucks caught footage of his mother examining his arm in their garage right after she arrived home. Mrs. MacMillan eluded the media that followed the family van away from the house, but it is now known that David was taken to the nearby hospital and admitted for intense swelling of his left elbow. The X-rays (shown below) were just released to the Associated Crush by David's media agent, Dr. Letitslip Talksalot. They show a separation of growth plates in the wrist and a bad sprain of the ligaments and muscles of the elbow.
David declined an interview, but it is generally thought that his blogability (the measure of his ability to blog) will be decreased by a large factor over the next week or so. An image (not shown here) was obtained of the arm in a hospital sling. "It is unlikely," said Dr. Talksalot, "that the arm will be casted."
Associated Crush, Washington, B.C.

In Him, David "Sprained" MacMillan III

Ariel Sharon Suffers Stroke, Israeli Politics Flipped

2006-01-05T21:28:00.000Z

Breaking News Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke and cerebral hemmorage, sending the Israeli government into an uproar. The stroke came just as Sharon prepared to enter the hospital to have a surgical procedure done. He had suffered a minor stroke in December 2005 and had been placed on blood-thinning medication. At this time a hole in his heart was found that was scheduled to be repaired today, January 5th. The decision to place Sharon on blood thinners has been highly criticized by members of his party, as it contributed greatly to the cerebral hemmorage that took place yesterday. A cerebral hemmorage occurs when a weak blood vessel in the brain bursts, spilling blood all over the brain. The blood thinner, an anticoagulant, prevented the spilled blood from clotting, aggravating his injury. During Sharon's incapacitation, power has been transferred to Israeli vice-premier Ehud Olmert. If Sharon is permanently disabled, Olmert will remain in power for 100 days, during which a crisis election will be held.

This sudden change comes as a shock to the Israeli political system. Sharon's popularity before his second stroke was 80%, and he was a favorite to win a third term in the upcoming elections. Now, with the figurehead of the centrist party Kadima possibly gone, the Israeli people will be forced to look elsewhere for their leader. Sharon was a Prime Minister very friendly to the Palestinian state as Israeli Prime Ministers go. It was he who expelled thousands of Israeli settlers from their homes in the then-Israeli-held Gaza strip, opening it up to the Palestinians. This act, apparently an effort to appease the Palestinian authority, was in the opinion of many quite foolhardy. The Palestinian goal is to take all of Israel "piece by peace" if they cannot take it by force: a strategy that Sharon played into quite well. I quote Dr. David Reagan:

"Arafat spelled out his current strategy several years ago to the Arab world, and the strategy was later adopted officially by the terroristic Palestine Liberation Organization. It is called the "phased plan." Realizing that they could not defeat Israel with war or terrorism, they decided that the road to victory was deceptive diplomacy. Arafat would talk about peace in return for land, while rallying the anti-Israeli Western powers to put pressure on the Israeli government to capitulate. Once he got a toe-hold in the land, he would then use that as a base for renewed attacks on Israel. In short, he would take Israel in phases. It is a clever strategy that he has spelled on in detail in many public speeches, just as Hitler outlined his strategy in detail in Mein Kampf." (emphasis mine)^Original

Now, with Sharon potentially on his deathbed and his Kadima party in shambles, perhaps the time has come for Israel to select a strong leader. A leader who will not be misled by the PLO's deceptive diplomacy. Should such an event take place and Israel end its foolhardy "Land-for-Peace" policy, the PLO will be forced to resort to terrorism and outright war. Syria would likely release the SCUD missles it has been buying from North Korea, resulting in an Israeli counteroffensive likely involving nuclear weapons. Such events could likely lead to a full-scale Middle-Eastern war as prophecied in Ezekiel 38 ^{(Read it)}. So how shall we then live?

"Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.
When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." (Luke 21:8-18)

In Him, David S. MacMillan III

New Year's Resolutions

2006-01-01T23:59:00.000Z

Happy New Year!

Over at The Account, David Ketter has a very interesting article on New Year's Resolutions. He sees the traditional resolution to "do better", even among Christians, as telling God, "Well, You can help me here, but only on my terms." Check out his article. On the other hand, the Harris twins over at the Rebelution have a different outlook. They hold to the principle that we can do all things through Christ who gives us strength. Take a look at their article here. Honestly, I think that both sides are expressing the same viewpoint in a different way. But a little controversy never hurt anyone! While I am at it, I have decided to post a resolution for this blog. This is not something that I have tried and failed to do in the past, just a new direction I think this blog should go. Traditionally, this blog has been composed of medium-to-long informative articles that are nonetheless interesting enough to keep your attention. I usually wait for other people to link to my articles. I will not be deserting my daily (or daily wannabe) column, but I do resolve to have more posts like this, where I reference what is going on in the homeschool blogosphere. I will also try to have more links in this type of post. The way I see it, it is better for everyone to have many short posts full of links than it is to have an occasion long post without any. To help me with this, I need all my readers to join the effort and inform me of newsworthy topics going around the blogosphere and in the news. Rather than writing a long article on my opinions, I will try to provide quips from various sources complete with links, and a shorter summary of my views.

To inform me quickly and easily, click the "News Room" link at the top of my sidebar.

So what do YOU think of the new approach?

In Him,

David S. MacMillan III

This post made later than date shown below due to technical difficulties.

Second-Class Displays | Brannon Howse

2005-12-30T23:40:00.000Z

At the request of one of my readers, I am publishing this article written by Brannon Howse. As usual, Mr. Howse has great insight. This article partially fits with my post on Christians as Second-Class Citizens. Enjoy!

Recently Brandi Chambless was told by a Bartlett, Tennessee branch library staff member that she could not use a public shelf to display a Nativity scene along with an announcement about a Christmas concert at Broadmoor Baptist Church. The shelf is open to the public for advertising upcoming community activities. The library official told Brandi that a donkey, sheep and other farm animals, along with a Shepherd boy, could be displayed but the Wise men; Joseph, Mary and the Baby Jesus were inappropriate “religious figures” and must be removed. The library official cited a written policy that does not allow any display in the library that was religious. This policy of the Memphis-Shelby County Libraries deems “any item which promotes a particular religion or sectarian religious belief” to be unacceptable for display in the library. If this is truly the policy of the Memphis-Shelby County Library then they need to remove every book and resource from every shelf and leave them completely and totally empty. Why? Because Webster’s dictionary, on the shelves of their library, defines a religion as "a collection of beliefs", therefore, every book in the Memphis Library system is promoting someone’s religion. We can thank the wisdom of the Mayor of Bartlett for over-ruling the Memphis-Shelby County library’s ridiculous policy. However, this incident brings to light the need for our local libraries to be influenced by the community and not the liberal American Library Association of which the Memphis libraries are members. The American Library Association has a long history of being hostile to Christian values including suing to stop the enforcement of a federal law that would withhold federal funds from any library or school that does not filter internet pornography from children. Judith Krug, of the American Library Association, bemoaned internet filtering software for libraries saying, “blocking material leads to censorship. That goes for pornography and bestiality too. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.” Well, two can play that game; if the Nativity scene at the library offends you then don’t look at it. I'm Brannon Howse.

Brannon Howse is the president and director of Worldview Weekend, a family-centered ministry dedicated to helping Christians think and live like Christians. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

The Star of Bethlehem

2005-12-30T01:31:00.000Z

The Star of Bethlehem has been laying quite heavy on my mind lately, as evidenced by my recent series, The Rising of Immanuel. As I read over accounts of Christ's birth, I come to wonder why those people alive at that time who saw the star shining every night took no heed of it. It is possible, of course, that the star was visible only to a few, similar to the instance in Acts 9 when Christ appeared visibly to Saul (later Paul) but not to those with him. But I believe the answer goes deeper. Consider this for a moment from the perspective of a long-time resident of Bethlehem. You have seen wars won and wars lost, Messiah wannabes cropping up right and left, and a host of "sensational" rumors quickly proven to be nothing but. Now a bright star makes it hard to sleep at night, and the news is spreading around town that the Messiah has been born. So what? You have better things to do. The Bible says that the Magi or Magoi followed the star all the way from Persia. In this case, it was visible not only in Bethlehem but for hundreds of miles around; a beacon of light for the entire world to see. Yet there is no record of anyone other than these Persian kings inquiring as to the meaning of this star. Indeed, Herod had to ask the Magoi when the star had first appeared. It seems that intense apathy reigned in the hearts of the men of that time. Intense apathy to be sure. It would require an extreme disinterest to totally ignore such an awe-commanding signal of the Messiah's coming. Paul "sheds some light" on this subject in his second letter to the churches in Corinth:

"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Corinthians 4:3,4,6

The god of this age. It is the policy of our God to bring hidden things to light, to reveal mysteries, and to shine the Truth wherever confusion is found. 1 Corinthians 14:33 says that "God is not the author of confusion but of peace." But the devil has a different plan. He learned early that rank insubordination was never a good idea; this got him thrown from God's presence in the first place. When he approached Eve in the Garden of Eden, he deceived her before instigating her to rebellion against God. He is one who desires confusion and strife, not understanding. 2 Peter 3 declares that the ungodly "willfully forget" that which would do them good, since they walk after their own lusts. This is what the devil wants most of all: a spirit of intense apathy so that even if people know the Truth, they will not receive it. So how shall we then live? It is our responsibility to shine the Light of Christ in this dying world, piercing the darkness of the apathy that enshrounds our culture and our world today. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

The Rising of Immanuel, Part 2

2005-12-28T16:15:00.000Z

Please read The Rising of Immanuel, Part 1 before reading Part 2.

"A sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red serpent. This great dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." Revelation 12:1-5

The Magoi knew that the appearance of the Virgin, the Lion of Judah, and the Serpent, all appearing on the eastern horizon, signaled the birth of the prophesied King. The King that would rule the nations with a rod of iron. And as they gazed on the brilliant star shining over the east, they knew they had to see this great sight for themselves. Almost a thousand miles away, in the tiny town of Bethlehem, shepherds gathered around a smelly cave in the side of the mountains. Above their heads a brilliant light made the night around them brighter than noonday. Inside the cave, surrounded by livestock, manure, and dirty hay, a man and his wife huddled around a feeding trough that contained a child wrapped in cloth used to clean newborn lambs. Remembering the awesome display of the angelic host a few minutes before, the shepherds were amazed at the relative simplicity of this heaven-announced birth. They fell to their knees and worshipped.

The Magoi had long since set out on their journey. And what a host they had with them! Each of the astronomers rode a mighty Persian elephant, guarded by a troop of mounted archers, the finest warriors in the Parthian military. Each of these in turn had an entourage of servants and slaves. This mighty caravan, exemplifying the strength of the East, numbered over a thousand. Over a year later, the Magoi and their troop neared the Judean border. Sentries guarding outposts sent couriers galloping to the palace of king Herod in Jerusalem. A young messenger made his way through the flanks of Roman legionnaires posted at the entrance to the chambers of Herod. "Personal message of highest import for the king. Personal message of highest import for the king." These words cleared the way as the young man entered the presence of the wrathful king. "Your majesty, our outposts have detected a vast Parthian army headed toward this city. Over a thousand of them, sir." Herod gnawed his lip in anger. The Parthian mounted archers were famous across the known world for their decisive tactics. The stiff, powerful ranks of the Roman legions had no defense against the volleys of lethal arrows rained down by the swift horsemen. "Send out a strong mounted skirmishing party under a flag of truce. If they come in peace, bring their leaders here. If not, turn out the Legions. All of them. That will be all." Herod terribly feared an overthrow of his precarious throne. He was an Edomite, and though the Jews were his distant cousins they hated each other bitterly. Who might know if the Parthian war horde would trigger another Jewish militia movement? The fearful king gritted his teeth in rage.

Atop his gigantic elephant, the leader of the Magoi spotted a group of armed horsemen coming toward them. "Emissaries from the Judeans, no doubt, coming to welcome those who would worship the newborn prince. Send out a truce party."

The small group of Magoi stood in the palace of Herod. "Where is the newborn King of the Jews?" asked their leader. "We have seen His star from the East, and we have come to worship Him." Although relieved to find that the Parthian army came for a peaceful purpose, Herod was greatly troubled by rumors that a king had just been born. He sent for the temple priests. "Where is the Messiah to be born?" the king demanded. "In Bethlehem of Judea, sir. The prophet Micah said His birthplace would be there."

"But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel." Micah 5:2

Herod, after telling the Magoi that Bethlehem was the birthplace of the new King, inquired when the star had first appeared. "We first saw the star over 15 months ago. We have come as fast as we could travel." "Well," replied the king cordially, "come back to my palace after you have found him. I would like to worship him as well." The Magoi left Jerusalem with an uneasy feeling. How would it be that the king would not know immediately where the newborn Prince was? Then they saw it. The star, brighter than ever, lit the way to the north. The Magoi set off at a gallop, their hearts ablaze. Finally, they would see the King.

"The kings of Tarshish and of distant shores will bring tribute to Him; the kings of Sheba and Seba will present Him gifts. Yes, kings shall worship Him." Psalm 72:10,11

On December 25th, 2 BC, the contingent of Persian astronomers with their vast cohort of bodyguards and servants galloped into the small hamlet of Bethlehem in Judea. The people of Bethlehem had grown accustomed to the brilliant light that shone over the slums in their city. When the shutters of their homes were closed, it was still as dark as ever. The Magoi rode straight to the home of Joseph Barjacob. Dismounting from their elephants, the men walked into the home of the boy Jesus and laid a fortune in Oriental spices and gold at His feet.

"A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more." Jeremiah 31:15

Herod gnawed his beard in rage. His spies had just brought word to him that the Parthian Magoi had departed from the land of Judea without coming back or telling him who the upstart king was. He barked an order to one of his men. "Kill them all!" "Kill whom, sir?" the orderly asked in confusion. "All of them!" the king howled. "Kill every male toddler in Bethlehem tonight!" "But sir, my family is in Beth--" The soldier dodged as a jewel-studded scepter flew past his head and crashed against a suit of armor on the wall. Herod leapt from his seat, clutching his sword. His face was livid. "Kill them!" the king screamed, the veins standing out on his throat.

Joseph, having been told in a dream to take his wife and son to Egypt, left that very night. Just minutes later, Herod's troops swept through the town, killing every male child they could find.

". . . out of Egypt I called my Son." Hosea 11:1

A few years later, Joseph left Egypt with Mary and the boy Jesus, and traveled to Nazareth to set up a carpentry shop with the last of the money left by the Magoi.

In Him, D3

The Rising of Immanuel, Part 1

2005-12-25T23:59:00.000Z

"The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising." Isaiah 60:3 "there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel," Numbers 24:17

2007 years ago today a contingent of Persian astronomers with a vast cohort of bodyguards and servants paid a surprise visit to the small hamlet of Bethlehem in Judea. Why would these dignitaries visit tiny Bethlehem? The answer spans eternity.

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies show His workmanship." Psalm 19:1 "God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky, and let them serve as signs. . . ." Genesis 1:14

When the temple of Solomon was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, many young, bright Jewish men were taken captive to Babylon to be educated in the ways of the Babylonians. One of these young men was Daniel. But Daniel found favor with God. He quickly rose to become one of the king's advisors. After one episode, when God revealed to him a dream that the king had dreamt, Daniel was elevated further to the position of chief advisor and wise man. It was here that he no doubt began to educate the soothsayers, astrologers, and wise men of Babylon in the ways of the one true God. As time passed, Babylon fell before the Medo-Persian Empire. But Daniel retained his position as an influential leader in the new regime, and continued to work with the pagan astrologers. It was here that he taught them that although the stars do not control us, our God controls the stars.

"A sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red serpent. This dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." Revelation 12:1-5

In early September of the year 3 BC, a group of Parthian 'kingmakers' stood in a tower overlooking their citadel. These men had a reputation for their ability to predict when a king would be born based on the stars. This gained them their title, 'kingmakers', or in the native Persian, "Magoi". The skeptics in the kingdom no doubt noticed that those marked for kingship by the Magoi usually rose to power because of this distinction, not the other way around. But through the reputation carried over from the days of the great prophet Daniel, these Magoi still held sway over the public policy of the Parthian empire. On this night, aides ran frantically to and fro making measurements and sighting the stars carefully. Near the top of the tower, several of the head Magoi conversed quietly. "The 'little king', Regulus, has lined up with Jupiter, the 'ruler of kings', for weeks now. And Regulus is the lead star in the Lion of Judah that Daniel spoke of." The Israelites used the constellations to represent the twelve tribes of Israel and told the story of the Torah using the skies. The lion we know as Leo they named the Lion of Judah. Having been well schooled by Daniel, the Magoi were quite aware of this. "What I am more interested in is that our view of Judah has just been obscured by the Virgin," said the leader of the small band. "And she is lying due east, next to the sun's rising. The Serpent has hung below this whole structure for a few days now." Yet another of the Magoi nodded, tugging his flowing white beard. "If my predictions are right, the sun will be at the hip of the Virgin and the moon at her feet tomorrow morning. And it appears that the Lion, with Jupiter, will pass from the sun to the moon at the same time." A wizened old man in the corner straightened up. "Remember what was taught us. A virgin shall conceive and bear a son. His name will be called 'God with us'. Immanuel." The first speaker, now excited, assented. "A scepter will rise out of Israel." The leader stopped the conversation by slowly rising. "It is the Sign." The group stood and spoke in unison. "It is the Sign." The next night, the group stood gazing to the east from the top of the tower. "The sun will rise in a few moments," whispered the youngest of the Magoi. As the first rays of our nearest star broke the horizon, clothing the Virgin in golden light, the leader spoke. "Look there! The Virgin gives birth!" The men watched as the Lion of Judah with Jupiter at its head came from behind the moon and out from the feet of the Virgin. They gasped in awe as a brilliant light lit up the sky to the east. It looked so small and far away, but it gave off such light. And it was so clear, the men felt as though they could reach out from their tower and touch it.

"Now there were in [Bethlehem] shepherds living out in the fields. And behold, the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid." Luke 2:8,9

In Him, D3 UPDATE: click here to read Part 2!

Christ is the Season!

2005-12-24T21:43:00.000Z

My father and I created a slide show for our church's Sunday service showing just a few of the many prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The presentation is very effective, if I do say so myself. The presentation uses Microsoft PowerPoint. Click here to download a free PowerPoint viewer if you do not have PowerPoint on your computer. To view the presentation, click here. The file is about 5 megabytes, so it will take a few moments to load. Once you have clicked the link and the new window has opened, do not touch the computer; just allow it to play. Be sure to have your speakers turned up! In Him, D3

Offensive ******mas Carols

2005-12-24T18:50:00.000Z

As I was surfing the web a few days ago, I came across an article written by Spunky Junior. A group of public schooled students, offended by the many references to the first Advent of Christ in the traditional carol "Silent Night", have created their own version:

Cold in the night, no one in sight, winter winds whirl and bite, how I wish I were happy and warm, safe with my family out of the storm.

Even though I am personally unoffended by references to Christ, I applaud these students for their unflinching tenacity in not tolerating things that offend them. I also have a carol that contains words offensive to me. The verse in the popular "Jingle Bells" contains references to horses and snow simultaneously. This is something that I simply cannot stomach, as I have had past bad experiences with both equestrian mammals and snow. So I have exercised my freedoms as well and composed my own variation:

Dashing through the dirt On a pair of broken skis Flying through the woods Bouncing off of trees Then ahead I see A skier's greatest fear Off the cliff with a hi-de-ho My last jump of the year Oh, Jingle Bells As I fell Whistling through the air Landing in a briar patch But no one even cared Oh, Jingle Bells Now I tell Why I never ski Since that day I've had no way To stand on my own two feet.

Never allow yourself to be offended! In Him, D3 [Disclaimer: the above statements are primarily satirical in nature.]

Bad Blogger . . . again

2005-12-24T18:09:00.000Z

I heartily apologize for my lack of blogging over the past few weeks. Busy, busy, busy. Hopefully I will be able to step it up over this Advent Season. I have just set up an account with NE1.net. This allows me to have a fastlink to my website. Now, if you type "www.standonbible.r8.org" into your browser, or create a link to it, it will automatically forward you to this site. On a final note, my blog has been nominated in several categories at Homeschool Blog Awards 2005. Vote for me! Merry Christmas! In Him, D3

We're Second-Class Citizens!

2005-12-05T21:45:00.000Z

In our nation's history, those with darker skin were once relegated to the position of second-class. But today, a whole new group of "second-class citizens" is creeping to the forefront. Who is this group? They are us. I am, as most of you know or can easily discover, a light-skinned, Christian, conservative, "straight", and male. For the liberals, these are 5 strikes against me. The Civil Rights movement, composed of the feminists and the anti-racism group, denounced the maltreatment of minorities for years -- and rightly so! But now, it has been hijacked; the anti-racism groups by the "sodomy rights" movement and feminist groups by the "reproductive rights" agenda. Instead of promoting equal rights for minority groups, the liberals want . . . special privileges. But not just for any minorities. No, in order to get special privileges and consideration, you must be an "approved minority". I am a minority in several ways; for example, I am partly Jewish and I am homeschooled. But homeschoolers are not an approved minority, because the vast majority of homeschooling families teach conservative, traditional values. And that is a ticket away from approval by the liberal left. There are just a few prerequisites for being a minority that gets special treatment. Besides the normal minorities that no one would dream of flaunting (blacks, women, etc.), or you must live a lifestyle and hold beliefs that conflict with a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview. It is really quite simple. Gays? Sure, you get in. Not only do you get the approved minority stamp, but we will allow you to practice criminal sodomy under the auspices of "equal rights". Yes, we know that it is special, unequal rights, not equal ones, but the government does not need to know that. National Organization for Women? Certainly. Never mind the fact that you push for the wanton killing of millions of innocents yearly. It doesn't matter that those in support of abortion are not really a minority; after all it conflicts with a traditional worldview, so you get extra rights . . . to murder. You want same-sex cohabitation, and you want the government to call it marriage? Certainly. This disagrees with the Bible and with Christian morals, so you get in! We are giving you the extra right to "marry" outside the definition of marriage, but we can just call it "equal rights" and slide you in. I have nothing against true minorities. But I have a definite problem with people breaking God's law and calling it a new minority! "We must be tolerant!" they say. Sure, sure, sure. Then why does your tolerance stop when I stand on God's Word? Today, if we do not somehow demonstrate that we are opposed to God's Word and want license to sin, we are relegated to the position of second-class citizen.

"Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." (John 3:19b-21)

In Him, D3

2005-12-04T01:21:00.000Z

Breaking News On Wednesday, a Federal District judge ruled that prayers in the Indiana Legislature can no longer "advance a particular faith", specifically declaring that the name of Jesus Christ cannot be mentioned. This, on the basis that such prayers would constitute a "government endorsement of a particular religion" and thus violate the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. Historically, almost every state has allowed legislatural prayers that invoke our nation's Christian heritage. The Constitution of Indiana begins with thanks to God:

". . . WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution."

Obviously, such a ruling as this one is in direct opposition to the written documentation of Indiana. But the ego and antichristian bias of the federal judges knows no bounds. To read more on this story, click here. In Him, D3

"Minions of the Devil"

2005-11-30T22:53:00.000Z

"You're nothing but a minion of the devil!" Strange words, coming from a biology professor at a 'Christian' college.

A few days ago I received a mailing from Dordt College. The leaflet's message was very positive and apparently conservative; every page mentioned God in one way or another. Their point? Taken from their website, http://www.dordt.edu/, "Ours is a community where faith and life and learning are not separate ... they're one." Since many Christian schools teach evolutionism and liberal ideology, I decided to see whether Dordt had a strong stance on the authority of Scripture. I left a message with one of their professors. Yesterday, the professor called back. He introduced himself as the top biology teacher at Dordt (I didn't get his name). I asked what the school taught about origins. He asked me to explain, so I asked specifically what the school's position was on the origin of life. "We teach that God created everything but we don't assume when or how," he replied. I wanted more details so I asked whether they taught the earth was thousands or billions of years old. After explaining that he was not a geology professor, he assured me that "of course, the earth is much more than thousands!" I did not agree, but kept it to myself. He began asking me questions about my beliefs about origins. As the conversation went on, it soon became apparent that the college teaches what sadly is prevalent in the mainstream Christian world today: 'God did it, but instead of looking to His Word for answers we will teach whatever the secular scientific consortium tells us.' I politely but firmly defended a Biblical interpretation of Genesis as he continued to question me. The professor avowed his support of the 'framework theory', which apparently ignores Genesis 1 and loosely interprets Genesis 2. He said that "if you just read Genesis 2, you would have a much different story than if you have the bias given by Genesis 1," implying, of course, that any "bias" is negative. I pointed out that if I only had the first chapter of my science textbook, I would have a very different idea of physics than if I read the whole book. He indicated that he had left a six-day interpretation of Genesis because of scientific 'evidence'. I replied that as "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," it is and should be its own best interpretation guide. He countered by exclaiming that I was "making an idol" of the Bible. Not my interpretation of the Bible, but the Bible itself. I was somewhat taken aback. After all, isn't that what we are supposed to do? I quoted John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, Psalm 138:2: "For You have magnified Your Word above all Your name." I said that making an idol of Scripture sounded like a good idea to me, as it is the living Word of God! He replied that I was "just making an idol of the Bible," and went on. He quoted almost every evolutionist stock answer in the book: from "it doesn't matter how God did it as long as we get the right message" to "the Bible isn't a science textbook." He finally asked me how old I thought the earth was, and laughed when I gave an age of 6-7 thousand years, due to the genealogies and a plain reading of Genesis 1-11. He then attacked the validity of Scripture by saying that the genealogies are full of errors. He called my position "historically bankrupt," declaring that hardly anyone in history supported six days of creation. I politely contradicted him, pointing out that Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, and Jesus all believed in a young earth; after all, Jesus said "at the beginning of creation He made them male and female." I had told him earlier that I planned to go into a legal field, so he asked why the creation-evolution issue was important to me. I explained that the foundations of morality and sin lie in Genesis, and that unless it can be trusted there is no rhyme or reason to anything I might do in law. "Besides," I said, "my entire faith hinges on the fact that there was no death before sin." I quoted Romans when it says that "through one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and death through sin." He hastily asserted that "obviously, he is speaking of spiritual death and separation from God!" But, I told him, Paul had just said that if Christ did not conquer the same death that "entered by Adam's sin" by physically raising from the dead, our faith is in vain and we are of all men "most miserable." So unless I believe that there was no death, physical or otherwise, before sin, I cannot believe I am heaven-bound. Rather than considering God's Word for what it says, the biologist again struck at Scripture by asking whether I believed Adam and the animals ate before the Fall. I knew what was coming, and sure enough he played what he thought was his trump card against God's Word: plants died before the Fall so it proves death before sin (and, therefore, apparently proves Paul wrong). I pointed out the concept of nephesh chayil life; that just as "the life of the flesh is in the blood" and that God "breathes the breath of life into life," that as plants have neither blood nor breath, it follows that plants are not alive in a biblical sense and cannot really die. He cut me off and quickly told me that the entire biological system is built around the 'fact' that plants are alive and can die. Which is patently false: as Dr. Lisle of Answers In Genesis pointed out when speaking with progressive creationist Hugh Ross, plants are really nothing more than complex biological machines. But rather than argue from a scientific basis I just said that "God apparently does not rely on scientific models to determine truth." By this time the professor was getting rather agitated. He told me my life was a waste and that my view was "junk science and junk theology." "If you know so much about it, I suppose you don't need to come to college." "The only point of Genesis," he said, "is to show that we are depraved and need a Savior, and that we should respect God's creation. When you stand before God, if you get there, He will ask you what you did with His creation and all you will be able to say is that you argued over a six-day creation viewpoint. You won't have anything to say!" I refrained from replying that I believe upholding the authority of God's Word and making sure it is believed from cover to cover bears eternal fruit. He declared that debate on origins was a lie from the devil, and that for talking about origins I was "just one of the devil's minions." Then he calmed down and informed me that he had just been "professing", and that as a 'professor' that is what he teaches at the college. This really sold Dordt well. After all, if upholding God's Word and being ready to give an answer is "the work of the devil" according to the teachings of this college, I will definitely not be applying there. What struck me about this conversation was that he had the boldness to say that upholding the authority of Scripture is equivalent to the work of the devil. This puts me in mind of Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness." The reason that we defend a plain-sense interpretation of Scripture is this; Christ told us to preach the Good News of His redemption: that all men are depraved and in need of a Savior, and that He is that Savior. In order to do this, we must tell why we are depraved, that God created the world perfect but man fell into sin and so brought death and suffering into the world. If we do not teach the first part of God's Word, telling everyone why mankind needs a Savior, they will have no reason to believe us when we tell them Who that Savior is. As Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:12, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"

In Him,

David S. MacMillan III

All religions okay . . . except one!

2005-11-21T21:09:00.000Z

At the Tulsa Zoo in Tulsa, Oklahoma, displays include a myriad of religious symbols. But one religion is anathema. The displays include Native American mysticism in the shape of a globe saying "The Earth is our Mother, the Sky is our Father" and statues of the Indian god Ganesha. An elaborate painting of the Pueblo rain god Tlaloc heralds South American deities and beliefs. But when local leaders asked the Tulsa Zoo board of directors to include the Genesis account of Creation as one of their displays, they were turned down. Why? They didn't want to include "religious symbols." After several petitions went out, the board finally voted to allow the display at left to be placed in the zoo (click image to enlarge). Sadly, however, what a local news poll confirmed as a 25% minority has convinced the board members to overturn the decision and block this display. The reason is that scientific creationism is believed by the majority of Americans. Its ideas are sound and it is founded in good scientific inquiry. A display suggesting this view might influence visitors away from Evolutionism. Without the theory of evolution, we might just be accountable to a Supreme Being for our actions . . . an idea that the board members at the Tulsa Zoo obviously find horrific. Dan Hicks, the Tulsa mayor, is spearheading the campaign to get this display okayed for the zoo. He and others have set up an online petition for this issue. I encourage all of my readers to sign this; it will only take a few moments and it is well worth your time. Imagine what a victory it would be to end this censorship! Sign the petition at www.CREATEzoo.org. As I write this, there are well over 200 signatures so far. We must make this number balloon! I will be counting the number of clicks on the above link to find out how many of you are going! In Him, D3

The Kingdom of Antichrist

2005-11-20T21:38:00.000Z

Prophetic scriptures speak of a coming Antichrist. In Daniel 9, it is the "prince who is to come" who will make a global treaty at the end of time but break will it after three and a half years. In 2 Thessalonians 2, he is the "man of sin", the "son of perdition" who will sit in the Jewish temple and declare himself God. This chapter also tells us that this world leader will be "consumed in the brightness of the Lord's Coming." Both Revelation and Daniel speak of a symbolic beast who will micromanage the entire global system through his ten-section government. He will go out to resist the Glorious Appearing of Jesus Christ but will be destroyed. When Jesus came the first time, His appearance was heralded by hundreds of distinct prophecies. You have all heard the statistics; for one man to fulfill just 48 prophecies would require odds of 1 in 10 to the 157th power: literally astronomical. Likewise, the Lord gave us hundreds of prophecies telling us about His second coming. Many of these scriptures speak distinctly about the government of the Antichrist; its attributes, symbols, and ideals. It is doubtful that we will be able to tell who the Antichrist actually is before he signs a specific seven-year treaty with Israel, but I am certain that we will be able to know the identity of his government. In the popular Left Behind series, the Antichrist takes over the United Nations and transforms it into his own "Global Community" centered out of a rebuilt Babylon. Many books, fiction and nonfiction, have been written on this subject. Daniel 2 makes the first direct reference to the final global kingdom. The king of Babylon is given a prophetic dream that is interpreted by the prophet Daniel. The young man tells the king that the statute he saw in the dream represents the worldly global governments, starting with a head of gold, Babylon, a silver chest representing Media/Persia, and stomach and thighs of bronze that herald Greece under Alexander the Great. The legs of iron came next; Daniel told the king that this worldwide empire would break in pieces, crushing the known world. This was fulfilled by the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire that threw Europe into the Dark Ages. The last kingdom is the toes of the statue; ten toes of iron mixed with clay. The iron, the prophet says, is part of the iron of Rome, and though the clay will try to adhere to the iron, it will not mix. This is the final government that will be crushed by the Second Coming of Christ; a government of 10 sections in two parts. Revelation says that the headquarters of the Antichrist will be centered in "Mystery Babylon; the city of seven hills." The city of Rome, especially the Vatican, has been known for over 2000 years as "the city of seven hills". Revelation was written by a Roman exile John, which explains why he had to use symbolic language to allow his letters to go through. In the last days of the Holy Roman Empire, it was divided into two sections, the Roman Empire of Northwest Europe and the Byzantine Empire of Southern Europe and parts of the Middle East. This is shown at right. Currently, the European Union is finallizing the inclusion of Turkey and surrounding areas into their union. The current layout of this empire is shown at left (countries currently lobbying for inclusion are shown in red and those already in are shown in yellow). Daniel said, "As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay." The motto of the European Union, taken straight from their site, is "United in Diversity." The European Union meets in a portable building, shown at the right. Looks deceptively like the unfinished Tower of Babel, does it not? That is the image they are trying to present. They call it "The Tower of Eurobabel." I will have more on the European Union/Revived Holy Roman Empire later. In Him, D3

To Time the Impossible Time

2005-11-20T01:04:00.000Z

Imagine, momentarily, that your life began only one month ago. Any memories you hold were digitally implanted after scientists accelerated through your childhood with budding technology. Now imagine that life started just days ago. Minutes ago. Moments ago. What if you had never actually begun reading this article, and the memories of even the beginning of this sentence were given you milliseconds ago? The fact is that we mortals cannot experience the true passage of time. We are conscious of only this infinitesimal blip of time; time that turns life into memory at the astonishing rate of sixty seconds per minute. Although we cannot know with certainty that anything but this timeslot of consciousness exists, most of us have faith that it is so. You may think that you cannot fathom life as an instant, but in fact you cannot truly fathom otherwise. What would it be like to experience "multiple times"? I often attempt to comprehend the "imponderables" of God's nature: His omnipresence, His ability to communicate directly to all of us simultaneously, and most of all His eternity. How could any being see all of time from the beginning to the end? How could such a "time-less" or "extra-chronological" state even exist? Is such a dimension part of eternity? We live with memories of the past in a infinitesimal point of the present. The future we cannot know. Perhaps God "remembers" both the past and the future. We cannot cognize His attributes. But a glimpse may be gained by imagining that He is conscious of all "times", not just the individual "times" that we can feel. It does not concern us practically how the Divine eternity operates. Revelation tells us that time will still be a real part of our existence with God, for "the tree of life . . . yields its fruit every month." (Revelation 22:2) But our curiosity and our interests in the things and ways of God compel us to at least attempt to understand His nature.

"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:1-9)

As I read over that passage, something struck me. I had always read it as "slack concerning His promises." But it says "promise", singular. Peter is speaking of Christ's promise to return . . . a promise that is as true today as it was 2000 years ago. Maranatha! Come quickly, Lord Jesus! In Him, D3

David Barton at Worldview Weekend

2005-11-16T22:02:00.000Z

While at Worldview Weekend, we had the privilege of hearing David Barton speak on the political situation facing evangelical Christians today. Mr. Barton, shown at left, is the president of Wallbuilders, a conservative organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten Christian heritage. As the author of numerous works on original intent and the Founding Fathers, Mr. Barton has been asked for advice on several occasions by Federal judges and such entities as the American Center for Law and Justice. It was an awesome opportunity to hear him speak. The most amazing thing about Mr. Barton's presentation was his grasp on simple facts. His Powerpoint presentation served to allow us to keep up with him as he rapidly gave thousands of bits of information ranging from the quotes of our Founders to modern statistics. I must say that I would hate to be involved in a debate of any kind with him! One of the interesting points made was that there was a 80% increase in Evangelical voting in 2004. This resulted in 90% of new freshman senators and Congressmen being pro-life. Bush has been able to appoint many conservative judges to federal positions, including one in and one pending on the U.S. Supreme Court. So things are looking up. Mr. Barton ended with this verse. It obviously refers to Jerusalem, but our God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

How the faithful city has become a harlot! It was full of justice; Righteousness lodged in it, But now murderers. Your silver has become dross, Your wine mixed with water. Your princes are rebellious, And companions of thieves; Everyone loves bribes, And follows after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, Nor does the cause of the widow come before them. Isaiah 1:21-23

Sounds like America to me.

Therefore the Lord says, The LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel, “Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries, And take vengeance on My enemies. I will turn My hand against you, And thoroughly purge away your dross, And take away all your alloy. I will restore your judges as at the first, And your lawyers as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.” Isaiah 1:24-26

So there is hope. Lord, let us be those righteous judges and lawyers You will use to restore this nation! This reminds me of a new song by the popular contemporary band, Casting Crowns. The song is entitled "While You Were Sleeping", and it deals with the real point of the old hymn, "Little Town of Bethlehem. Bethlehem missed it! They were sound asleep when the Creator of the Universe was born in their stable! Jerusalem did the same. They missed the triumphal entry of Christ and hanged Him as a madman. Will we do the same? Will America wake up in time to even notice Christ's Second return? Click the "play" button below to listen to an excerpt from this powerful song, and click here to read the lyrics (beware of popups at the site!). Click here to purchase the song from Casting Crowns. In Him, D3

Kansas Approves Criticisms of Evolution

2005-11-11T02:01:00.000Z

Yesterday, a Kansas school board voted to allow criticisms of Darwinian evolution in the public schools. They also changed the working definition of "science" by removing a presupposition of naturalism. As may be expected, the scientific and religious worlds are either inflamed or excited over this decision. Hundreds of journalists and humanists are calling this a "slap in the face of freedom" or "another ruthless attempt to push religious dogma on our innocent children." Others call it a "step toward effective scientific inquiry" or "a victory for science."

I explained in my last post that the scientific method, both in an empirical/industrial setting and in a forensic/historical setting operates in this way: a natural phenomenon or a "piece of the past" is observed/discovered and a conjecture is made as to how it operates or, in the case of historical inquiry, how it got there. Studies are arranged to test the hypothetical conjecture. These may include controlled experiments with a range of careful variance in an industrial setting and observations of similar natural processes or occurences in the forensic setting. These tests either lend support or detriment to the hypothesis. I have no argument with teaching Darwinian evolution in Biology class. It is real empirical science. The observation is genetic variance in species and direct speciation. The conjecture is that mutations (observed phenomenon) and natural selection (another observed phenomenon) combine to produce uphill progress in the broad spectrum of life on this planet. Just because the proponents of this scientific theory cannot bring up any tests or observations of natural processes that support it does not make it non-scientific. But it would be academic folly in the greatest degree to teach Natural History in a Biology class. Biology is the study of natural processes. Period, end of sentence. Natural History is a forensic scientific study of the echoes of our past. Biological observations can be used as the "tests" in conjectures made concerning Earth's history. But since "Natural History" has by its very nature never been observed, it is useless to use it as the "test" in a biological study. In other words, it is one thing to present Darwinian evolution as a theoretical biological process. It is quite another to assure students that life on earth came about through it. Since Biology and Natural Science are two different branches of scientific inquiry, it only makes sense that different rules should be applied. If we teach evolution in Biology 1, we should present it as a scientific theory similar to General Relativity or any other theory, with the observations, the theory itself, and all tests that either support it or attack it. Just because science cannot find any supporting experiments or tests does not mean that unsupporting evidence must be suppressed. We all know the reasons behind this, however. The biological hypothesis of evolution serves as the backbone of the forensic hypothesis of evolution. To question the "natural process" of evolution casts doubt on what the schools teach as fact in Natural History class. To question the historical hypothesis of evolution is to allow evolutionist Richard Lewontin's "Divine Foot in the door." More later. In Him, D3

What Kind of Evidence?

2005-11-10T00:23:00.000Z

In my joint-owned blog, The Truth About Macroevolution, there has been an ongoing war in the comments that I have decided to address in an additional comment and a full-length post on that site. I decided to post my article here as well. So here goes!

I will start with a rather novel and even startling admission. There is no evidence for creation. Well, there you have it. The plain statement. However, we have to admit something else as well. There is no evidence for evolution, either. That is right, there is no creation evidence and no evolution evidence. All we have is . . . evidence. We must understand that both creationism and evolutionism are forensic models of history. Creationists and evolutionists both have the same evidences at their disposal; the same fossils, the same rocks, the same trees, and the same strata layers. The question is which model best fits the existing evidence. Both sides are usually able to cram whatever forensic evidence that exists into their model. An excellent example of this is found in an old Father Brown mystery. A detective believed that the ragged man he has captured is the murderer of one Lord Falconry and determined to test his theory. He set up a machine to monitor the man's pulse. Then, he wrote "hawk", "eagle", and "falcon" on a chalkboard. When he wrote "falcon", the prisoner's pulse leapt. When he added an "r" to the end, the man's pulse skyrocketed. Proof enough! A machine cannot lie, can it? True. However, as Father Brown pointed out, a machine cannot tell the truth, either. The man did get excited when "Falconr" was written on the board, but not because he had killed Lord Falconry. In fact, he was Lord Falconroy, but did not want to tell the officer because of a scandal he was involved in. Why was he ragged? He had just left a masquerade party. So you see that the way you interpret evidence depends on your preconceived model, not whether the evidence is "creation" evidence or "evolution" evidence. When I found out that a T. Rex bone had been found with still-bloody soft tissue inside, I was sure that this proved dinosaurs lived recently. However, the long-age establishment had a way to fit this seemingly inexplicable evidence into their model. They explained that the bones "fell" into a primordial stew which quickly transformed the blood vessels and stretchy tissue into a nanopolymer with identical properties. This mineral nanopolymer, then, retained its properties for millions of years, not the actual tissue. That is quite a preposterous explanation, to be sure. My point is that any forensic evidence can be form-fitted to match a particular model. The question is which model best fits the existing evidence with the least "massaging" of the data. We can also test things we see around us to determine whether a particular interpretation of forensic evidence matches reality. These tests or observations yield "empirical" evidence, which unlike forensic evidence is much more repeatable and testable. For example, creation scientists interpret the Grand Canyon as forensic evidence for a huge flood that deposited millions of layers quickly, then receded from land, carving out the canyon. Evolutionists see it as millions of years of gradual mineral deposition followed by millions of years of gradual erosion by the Colorado River. We can take a look at Mt. St. Helens to determine which model best fits. When the mountain exploded, the fast-moving ash and rock deposited and carved out a massive canyon with thousands of layers . . . in a few hours. Even though this is not repeatable, it was directly observable. This makes it empirical evidence instead of forensic evidence. If you want something even more empirical, try putting clay, silt, gravel, sand, and mud into a jar along with lots of water and shaking it. Global Flood on a kitchen-sized scale! You will find that lots of churning water yields lots of layer in a little bit of time. So we have forensic evidence: The Grand Canyon. Decayed radioisotopes. Bleeding T. Rex fossils. These are the remnants of the earth's past. We have models. Catastrophism. Gradualism. Young-earth. Long-age. Creationism. Evolutionism. And we have supplementary empirical evidence. Observations like Mt. St. Helens on the one hand and observations of gradual erosion by the Colorado River on the other. We cannot prove that evolution or creation are true. All we can do is collect forensic evidence and show with empirical evidence how and why the forensic evidence fits best in our model. So in this discussion, asking for or giving "evidence" is rather pointless until we know exactly what we are asking for. The forensic evidences in this discussion are fossils, strata layers, and life itself. The model we are focusing on in this site: evolutionism. So you, the defender of evolution, need to come up with empirical evidence that shows why and how specific forensic evidences fit evolutionism. An example of this would be. . . . Forensic evidence: Simple and complex life. Model: "Life evolved from simple to complex through natural selection and mutations." Empirical evidence: Some example of natural selections and mutations producing a positive, uphill change in an organism from simple to complex. We, the attackers of evolutionism, need to come up with empirical evidence that shows why and how specific forensic evidences are incompatible with evolutionism. For starters on our side, I will show: Forensic evidence: Dinosaur and human footprints in the same strata layer side-by-side. Model: Humans and dinosaurs walked or ran side-by-side along mineral-laden sand as the waters rose in the global flood. Empirical evidence: Today, we can see that strata-like layers often result from mineral-rich sand that is quickly flooded. Footprints are made by walking in sand or mud. Obviously, that is not supposed to be the ultimate death-knell for evolution. Rather, the combination of empirical and forensic evidence lend support to the model that humans and dinosaurs lived simultaneously during a large flood. Hopefully my lengthy discourse here has cleared up some confusion and defined exactly what we need. So what do you think? In Him, D3

Worldview Weekend

2005-11-07T18:02:00.000Z

Our family returned late Sunday night from the Worldview Weekend Seminar in Sevierville, TN. It was simply incredible! I'd say that the most notable thing about the whole experience was . . . the traffic! Larry Dalton, a concert pianist who played several amazing pieces for us, summed it up this way when he was tricked into wearing a tuxedo:

"Look, I'd change into jeans and a T-shirt if I could get back to my hotel. But I'm an hour away; that is, three miles.

Sevierville borders on Gatlinburg, the mega-entertainment town of the Smoky Mountains. As a result, incoming traffic is normally backed up through all the surrounding towns and highways. A trip of 3 miles may very well take over 30 minutes. Ken Ham gave his signature presentation on the current AiG slogan: "We're taking them back!" He blogged about the seminar as well. The President of Worldview Weekend, Brannon Howse, spoke about his new book One Nation Under Man?, and Kerby Anderson, who spoke on the subject of Intelligent Design and how it relates to Creationism. Other speakers included Woodrow Kroll, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, and David Barton. Mr. Barton, president of Wallbuilders, gave an amazing presentation. This man has memorized hundreds of thousands of statistics and quotes. The presentations I saw will give me fuel for quite a few posts. Al Denson, a popular Christian singer, gave a concert Saturday evening. During it, he asked for a member of the audience that was under 20 to volunteer. Or, at least he meant to. Instead, he said "over 20". Well, my mom is an excellent singer. She raised her hand. He called her up onto the stage and had her sing with him. She pretty much stole the show (without meaning to, however); after they sang "Amazing Love", he had her sing "I Love You, Lord" by herself with him accompanying her. Needless to say, we were all quite stunned. The sound man taped the concert, so now we have a CD with my mom singing accompanied by Al Denson! More on this amazing seminar later. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

A Very Bad Blogger. . . .

2005-11-04T14:54:00.000Z

Hey Cyberspace, I looked at my website today and realized that I had not blogged in nearly a month! All of you probably know the reason. Busy, busy, busy. I finished my first quarter finals for my college paralegal course on Thursday, so hopefully I'll have time to get caught up on life in general during the next two weeks while I am on break. But not now. Our family is preparing to head off to a Worldview Weekend seminar in the Smoky Mountains. Speakers/singers will include Ken Ham, David Barton, Woodrow Kroll, Al Denson, Kerby Anderson, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, and Brannon Howse. So I won't be blogging until after I return on Monday. Until then, God bless you and have a great day! In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Noah Riner Says "Jesus" at Dartmouth Convocation

2005-10-05T00:15:00.000Z

On Tuesday, September 20, Noah Riner stood in front of the entire incoming freshman class during Convocation at Dartmouth College. As student body president, he had been asked to give the tradition Convocation remarks welcoming the class to the college. The son of a Baptist State Representative in Kentucky and a committed Christian, he knew what he had to do. And he did it. Noah went on to give what will be remembered as one of the boldest, most focused welcoming speeches ever given by at any Ivy League school. Although he started out with the usual hype ("You are such a special class"), his tune quickly changed.

But it isn’t enough to be special. It isn’t enough to be talented, to be beautiful, to be smart. Generations of amazing students have come before you, and have sat in your seats. Some have been good, some have been bad. All have been special.

The young man boldly cut straight to the issue at hand. A Dartmouth education, he said, might make you smart or successful, but it won't build character. Noah quoted Martin Luther King Jr:

"But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. . . . We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education."

Noah spoke about the atrocities committed by hundreds after the ravage of Katrina. But, he said, his purpose was not to condemn them as much as it is to condemn us. He was speaking to the freshman class, but his words apply to you and I just as much as them. Character problems, he said, are an integral part of all of us.

Let's be honest, the differences are in degree. We have the same flaws as the individuals who pillaged New Orleans. Ours haven't been given such free range, but they exist and are part of us all the same.

He could have stopped here. People's feelings might have been slightly hurt, but no one would have been unduly upset. But he didn't just stop there. The class president took a deep breath, then said just what he had planned.

The best example of character is Jesus. In the Garden of Gethsemane, just hours before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed, "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." He knew the right thing to do. He knew the cost would be agonizing torture and death. He did it anyway. That's character.

Noah knew he could still stop now. Sure, he had dropped the Jesus bomb, but anyone would concede that Jesus was a good example of character (even though some would argue that the example Noah had given was not the best). But Noah is a Christian.

Jesus is a good example of character, but He's also much more than that. He is the solution to flawed people like corrupt Dartmouth alums, looters, and me.

Now he had done it. A murmur of surprise swept through the crowd. You could almost hear the student's thoughts. "So Jesus is the only solution, huh?" "What a bigot." "Yeah, sure. Save the preachin' for the pulpit." Noah quietly told the assembly that everything they gained from Dartmouth would prove to be superficial in the long run. What really matters, he firmly said, is character.

Thus, as you begin your four years here, you've got to come to some conclusions about your own character because you won't get it by just going to class. What is the content of your character? Who are you? And how will you become what you need to be?

Read the full speech here.

As you might expect, reactions were immediate. The school newspaper began printing anything and everything that students wanted to say. Some were good, some were bad. Riner's opponent in his earlier presidential race was livid. He called Riner bigoted, preachy, zealous . . . you name it. But that's not surprising. After all, he had been trounced by this kid from "backwoods" Kentucky in the last election. In fact, the angry student ended his letter by declaring that students "didn't need to make a decision about Jesus." Now who's preaching? Other students were more open to the controversial remarks. A young Jewish boy said that although he personally disagreed with the point of the speech, he thought that Noah's willingness to use his right of free speech and stand up for something he believed in was commendable. The discussion about this is still in full swing. The blogosphere is abuzz with stories about Noah Riner's "preachiness". It's one thing to read this speech. Noah's words are timeless. But it is quite another thing to see the speech being given. You can download a video taken by Noah's father, Representative Tom Riner, at this link. So take a look! And say a prayer for Noah while you're at it. His e-and-snail mailboxes have been mobbed with congratulations and hate mail. It's very hard for him, since he is starting his junior year and is trying to juggle classes and interviews all at the same time. He would no doubt appreciate it if you would submit a prayer request for him at your local church. Credit: I first saw this at The Rebelution but got other information from the various Dartmouth websites and personally from the Riner family. In Him, D3

Protecting Fundamental Rights and Freedoms | A 28th Amendment

2005-10-03T00:36:00.000Z

Today, my great-grandfather Starling visited our church assembly and our home for a little fellowship. The man is 93 years old and still sharp; he remembers everything that ever happened to him since he was a boy . . . and can tell you all about it, too! On this trip, he was very excited about a new idea that he had for the United States. He is worried that very soon, our courts and legislators will begin looking to Europe and other countries for a legal basis. This is not as far-fetched as we may think; Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court Justice who just resigned, often said that we should follow the European's lead when setting new legal precidents. With the condition that cowardly Europe is in, this would prove disastrous to all that makes America great. So, my great-grandpa wants me to contact Jay Sekulow with the American Center for Law & Justice with a proposal for an protective amendment to the U.S. Constitution! Pretty sharp for 93 years old, isn't he? I happily typed up a legal document in Constitutional format defining the things he wanted to put forth and sent him home with a copy to read. I decided to post it, so here it is!

Text of the Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution Section 1: No ruling by any court, domestic, foreign, or intergovernmental, nor any legislation by any foreign or intergovernmental legislative or parliamentary body, which abridges or restricts any fundamental freedoms as defined below, shall be accepted as legitimate or used as the basis for laws or legal rulings in the United States.
Section 2: Each citizen of the United States not convicted through due process of law of a felonious crime is guaranteed the following liberties under this amendment:
Subsection 1: The liberty of free speech: the freedom to verbally express their personal beliefs and convictions in any environment, public or private, provided that such speech is not terroristic in nature. Only speech designed to cause fear of imminent physical bodily harm or treason against the government of the United States shall be defined as terroristic.
Subsection 2: The liberty of free press: the freedom to print or electronically transmit any materials expressing any beliefs under any circumstances, and the freedom to distribute said materials provided that said distribution in no way interferes with the personal preference of the recipients of such materials.
Subsection 3: The liberty of free belief: the freedom to hold any personal beliefs concerning truth and the freedom to share these beliefs with others in any circumstances provided that the transmission of information does not disturb the free movement of the individuals.
Section 3: Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have the authority to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation and judicial rulings.

Not bad for about 15 minute's work! The first section defines exactly what the amendment is speaking of. Don't worry that "abridgements" of your freedoms will be prevented by private entities. The first section insures that only foreign and domestic courts and foreign parliaments will be barred from "infringing" upon these rights. So an employer can still tell people not to talk on the job. Notice also that this amendment would in no way hamper Congress. In fact, it would give Congress added authority under the Constitution (section 3) to prevent more injustice than it currently is allowed to. I don't think that any foreign rulings should be accepted in the U.S. However, such a blanket statement would likely draw huge flak, so I carefully defined each value in section 2, especially that part concerning felonious convictions. If you are convicted of a felony, then you have basically handed your freedoms over to the government to be dealt with as they please. The amendment is just in draft form at the moment. However, as I look over it I can probably smooth out the rough edges and make it more presentable. What do you think about it? Any suggestions on what needs to be edited/inserted? In Him, D3

Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice

2005-09-28T01:47:00.000Z

A few days ago, I received a newsletter from Lamb&Lion Ministries. One of the articles included a reference to a blistering piece written about a year ago by Mathias Döpfner, entitled "Europe — Thy Name is Cowardice." Those fluent in German can read the original article here, but if not, you can find a full translation at Snopes.com. I found Mr. Döpfner's article to be bold and extremely to-the-point. He definitely isn't going to pull any punches! I encourage all of you to read it; it's only a little over 750 words, so it shouldn't take that long. But because nearly 800 words is way too long for a post on this blog, I'll just comment on the article in general. Mr. Döpfner starts out by quoting a journalist named Henry Broder, who said a few days before this article was written that "Europe's family name is appeasement." The Europeans definitely do have a history of appeasement. The article points out that attempts at appeasement cost millions of Jews their lives during WWII. It allowed communism to gain a stranglehold on Eastern Europe and Asia. Today, this same theory of appeasement turns a deaf ear to the suicide bombings in Israel by terroristic Palestinian Muslims. And now, says Mr. Döpfner, we are faced with "a particularly grotesque form of appeasement." Since Islamic violence has been escalating in Holland and other parts of Europe, Germans have proposed appeasing the terrorists by instituting a national Muslim holiday! A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".
"All Experience hath shewn" that Muslims look on such hopeless guestures as signs of weakness. Claiming that Islam will be stayed by a national Muslim holiday is like playing music from "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" when a cougar is about to pounce on you.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
We self-sufficient Americans may argue about the ethics of Bush's policies, but Europe knows him for what he is: a man who is not afraid to do everything he can to stop the flood of Islamic terrorism. Mr. Döpfner angrily blasts Europe for sitting back on its haunches and doing simply nothing. It is not because of "our morals", he says. It is because of "our materialism":

We Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic. For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake — literally everything. While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems.
Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive". Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

I wholeheartedly agree. In Him, D3

God like an Elephant? I don't think so!

2005-09-24T13:33:00.000Z

There is a story supposedly told by Buddha that has no doubt been floating around for centuries. It is an analogy that claims to explain the truth about all religions. It is the story of The Blind Men and the Elephant.

"Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, 'Go and gather together all the men in this city who were born blind, and show them an elephant.' The servant did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the leg, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant. "When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?' "Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an elephant is like a great rock.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a fan.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a spear. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a snake; others said the body was a wall; the leg, a tree; the tail, a rope, the tuft of the tail, a brush. "Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An elephant is not that!' and so on, till they came to blows. "Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene. "Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing. . . . In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."

How sweet. I suppose that all religions are really just different interpretations of the same basic God-aura. We can call it "religious pluralism." WRONG! The interesting thing is that those who quote this story always place themselves in the position of the raja. We, the dirty argumentative "preachers", are relegated to the position of blind men, groping around for something we supposedly know nothing of. They say that all religions are the same. Fine. They can believe that if they want to. But promoting religious pluralism is no different than promoting any other religion. They are in the same boat, "just as blind" if you will, as we are! Besides, the position that all religions are the same is fundamentally absurd. Why? God is not something subjective, like my favorite flavor of ice cream. If God or a god actually exists as a fact, then His supposed characteristics cannot be both contradictory and true! It is a logical impossibility. Mutually exclusive facts do not exist. Jesus said that "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one can get to heaven apart from Me." Islam says that "There is no god but Allah and Muhummad is his Prophet." Get it straight: if Christianity is true, nothing else is. The same goes for Islam, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and a host of others. But let's give the religious pluralists the benefit of the doubt (without allowing them the position of all-knowing raja). In this case, we are all blind men arguing about something we have never seen. What we need is a man who is not blind. Someone who can see the thing that we argue about so fiercely. A Man did exist who claimed to be this "seeing man". His Name was Jesus Christ. He could see . . . because He was the very thing that we argue about. He is God. But what is so special about Him? Other men have claimed to "see" what no one else can see. Buhhda himself, with the analogy I just quoted, was such a man. Muhummad claimed to have visions of an angel who told him about God. Hundreds of men, like David Koresh (Branch Davidians) and Joseph Smith (Mormons) were supposed vessels of knowledge about God. What makes Jesus different? Today, we can visit Muhummad's grave. And Joseph Smith's grave. Mary and a myriad of saints, the Roman Catholic objects of worship, lie moldering in their coffins. Every other man who claimed to be God's vessel of truth is dead and gone. The grave of the Lord Jesus Christ is empty. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Global . . . Fluctuation?

2005-09-23T21:25:00.000Z

I recently wrote an article questioning whether the rise in hurricane intensity and frequency was caused by global warming. This sparked a lively controversy, so I followed it up with another article. New information has pushed me to write yet a third article, which you will see here. European scientists are concerned that the deadly summer heat wave of 2003 that killed thousands in France and triggered massive forest fires (see image at right) may have accelerated the growing greenhouse gas levels. When the temperature goes up, vegetation withers up and dies. Since plants cycle out the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a loss of plant life means a corresponding increase in CO2. However, other scientists say that this is simply not a problem. The key lies in the specific way that plants absorb CO2. Plants use energy from the sun (photosynthesis) along with soil nutrients to separate CO2 into its constituent elements: oxygen, which is released back into the air for us to breathe, and carbon, which the plant uses to grow. Carbon acts as fuel. The more carbon that is absorbed, the faster plants grow. This means that abnormally high CO2 levels trigger runaway plant growth . . . that in turn synthesizes more carbon dioxide than normal, bringing the levels back down. Story taken from a live radio broadcast on National Public Radio. So it seems like all this hype that environmentalists have been screaming about for decades isn't such a big deal after all. God designed our planet to cope with physical imbalances . . . just the way He wanted it to. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

Crippled Jetliner Skids to Safety in Los Angeles

2005-09-22T12:47:00.000Z

Breaking News Yesterday afternoon, JetBlue flight 292 took off from Burbank, heading for JFK International in New York. The jet was loaded with 30,000 pounds of fuel for the cross-country flight. However, upon takeoff, the pilot realized that something was wrong with the front landing gear. He immediately called in a distress call. A fly-by showed that the hydraulic mechanism to lower the front gear had malfunctioned. Instead of being aligned front-to-back with the jet, it was turned 90 degrees from the norm! There was no way that this jet could land normally; at the best the crippled gear would shear off upon landing, sending the nose into the ground and skidding the massive aircraft across the runway. The pilot flew to the LA airport, where the runway is 10,000 feet long. When you're stopping without brakes, you want a lot of skidway under you. He circled for over three hours, trying to burn off fuel, since an Airbus 320 cannot dump excess fuel. They wanted as little high-octane fuel as possible in case of fire upon landing. Final approach. The pilot lowered the rear wheels to the ground, and the jet sped along the runway at a terrific speed. Slowly and carefully, the nose was lowered until the front wheels began to scrape along the ground. Plumes of smoke rose as the rubber burned against the asphalt. The wheels burned down to the metal, and a gigantic plume of flame (see photo at right) erupted from the gear, searing the belly of the speeding jet. The captain held the burning gear against the ground and reversed the engines. The wheels burned lower and lower. Any moment, they were sure that the gear would snap off entirely. At the reduced speed that they were going, this would send the nose of the plane diving into the tarmac. Everyone watching television and listening to the radio breathed a collective sigh of relief as the flames subsided and the damaged jet slowed, then stopped. With the front wheels a puddle of rubber around the smashed front gear, the captain wiped his forehead, then began turning off the controls. I can imagine the words of the passengers as the flight attendant informed them that "it is now safe to turn on cellphones," and the shuttle wheeled out to pick up the passengers. "Well, hon, the landing was a bit bumpy, but we're down in LA. You can pick me up in about thirty minutes." Praise the Lord! You can bet that there were no atheists aboard that plane when it was all said and done. In Him, D3

Rita Prepares to Ravish Gulf Coast

2005-09-21T20:25:00.000Z

Breaking News Hurricane Rita expanded into a Category 5 storm with 165-mph winds just a few minutes ago as it roared across the Gulf. Mandatory evacuations of Galveston, the expected "Ground Zero" of the hurricane, will begin at 7 PM. Texas governor Rick Perry has already advised families to move out now, saying that "Homes and businesses can be rebuilt, lives cannot . . . Now is the time to leave." Officials say that Galveston has never seen a hurricane of this magnitude. Obviously, there will be no massive flooding akin to Katrina and New Orleans, but with winds possibly reaching 200 miles per hour roofs will be coming off of houses and mobile homes will roll. This is not the place anyone should be. As Rita nears the northeast coast of Texas, the likelihood that it will strike The Big Easy once again is quickly decreasing. We cannot, however, forget the way that Katrina swung north to smash through the below-sea-level city seemingly at the last moment. Some speculate that it would be better if New Orleans was hit once again instead of some other place, since now the city is practically leveled and empty anyway. However, this would likely result in even less salvageable buildings and supplies in that area. The U.S. Minerals Management Service reported yesterday that 15 oil drilling rigs and 136 pumping platforms have been evacuated, representing approximately 11 percent of the oil output from the Gulf (Miami Herald). Damage from Katrina and now the Rita evacuations have cut normal Gulf oil production of 1.5 million barrels a day roughly in half, according to the government agency. Since Katrina evacuations began Aug. 26, the storms have cut more than 26 million barrels of oil production. This means that 4.7 percent of the Gulf's annual production has been sliced! We're talking about a major gas shortage here. Interestingly enough, a barrel of crude oil can yield anywhere from 8 to 32 gallons of gasoline, depending upon how much asphalt, butane, paint thinner, etc. is made from the same barrel. If the Feds wanted to (I'm not saying that they should because it would call Constitutional issues into question), they could limit the amount of extra-fuel oil products that are manufactured to make up for the lost oil refineries. As is shown by the image on the right, Rita is projected to smash directly into the Galveston area, then continue up through Houston and Dallas (the major population centers of Texas) into Oklahoma. Currently, images from the Weather Channel show that the hurricane is about 2/3 the size of Texas. Even though it is a Category 5 already, it has yet to hit the main body of the Gulf Stream source just southeast of the Texas coast. Landfall is expected to take place early Saturday morning. But if residents don't leave right now, they likely will not be able to make it out at all. Click here to see a map of your area color-coded to show the level of alarm. So, if you are anywhere close to the Gulf Coast, get off of your seat, turn off your computer, and GET OUT NOW! On another note: if you are separated from your friends and family, but in safe conditions, please visit Gulf Coast Connection to post your profile and stay in touch with your friends. In Him, D3

The Crux (or Crescent) of Islam

2005-09-21T11:38:00.000Z

A recent article I wrote concerning the Iranian nuclear program sparked a lively debate in the comment section. I thought it was a good idea to post my thoughts on the subject: The majority of the Muslims in the Middle East are conservatives. They pray 5X a day, make their little pilgrimage, etc., and hope they can get into heaven. They openly rejoice whenever a terrorist bombing occurs. Many give financial support to terrorist entities. Muslims are not guaranteed their salvation. One of Muhammud's closest friends said that "Even if I had one foot in Paradise, I would not trust to the cunning of Allah." Muhammad himself did not know for sure whether he would "make it". The only way for a Muslim to be sure he will get to Paradise is to die while killing the infidel. If they succeed in this, all past history of failures and mistakes is glossed over, and they are ushered into heaven where their 70+ virgin wives await them ASAP. Such are the so-called "fundamentalist" Muslims, who make up a larger percentage than you might think. Many Muslims do not follow the Koran to the letter out of convenience' sake. They figure that they have more than a 50% chance without going on a terrorist mission, so they shoot for the easy way. However, if there is any open demonstration against the "infidel", these conservatives will quickly become radicals. Obviously, a nuclear holocaust is the very first thing that radical Muslims want! The more conservative Muslims who hold high office in Iran pay lip service out of one end of their forked tongues to us, and meanwhile hand weapons and funding to terrorist groups who are willing to do the "dirty work". One of the commenters said that "Iran says it's only planning to use the nuclear technology for the purpose of energy." Sure. Then why, when offered an annual supply of pre-manufactured nuclear fuel, did Iran refuse? The US and Great Britain offered to supply lower-grade nuclear fuel free of charge. But Iran had to have the higher-grade stuff . . . capable of making bombs. Israel is not hostile to the Muslims. They offend the Muslims simply by existing! Islam teaches that the Jews were turned into pigs and monkeys because they were so vile. Muslims will not stop attacking Israel until it is pushed into the sea. One of the commenters said that "the US then should be willing to disarm completely rather than complain about other countries feeling threatened and therefore wanting the weapons." Maybe if I set an example by destroying my handgun (hypothetical), the criminals will follow the example and do the same, but I don't think so. If Iran has nuclear weapons, the knowledge that using them would cause a nuclear holocaust might keep the conservatives from using them in an all-out attempt to destroy the U.S. and Israel. However, if the fundamentalist faction got their hands on some nukes, they wouldn't hesistate to start making plans for a full-scale attack. Therefore, anyone can see that it is in our best interest to keep nukes out of Islamic hands and in our own. To quote Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." If we carry the stick and make sure no one who hates us has one, maybe we won't need to use it. In Him, D3

Gulf Coast Connection!

2005-09-19T00:29:00.000Z

Today, I met a guy at church named Ryan. Ryan lived in Longbeach, Mississippi until Hurricane Katrina hit; his family moved out right before the storm came through. Since his neighborhood and home is now in ruins, he will be staying in this area for about a year. We decided to start a website to help teens displaced by the hurricane connect with their friends who are also displaced. So, he and I created a Blogger account to set this up. The website url is http://gulfcoastconnect.blogspot.com. Anyone who has been displaced by the hurricane can send us an email at gulfcoastconnect@gmail.com with their name, information, contact email, and a picture if they wish. Then, we'll post their info on the site. I'll be setting up a search engine on the blog so that visitors can find their friends. So check it out! In Him, D3

Iran Prepared to Share Nuclear Ability

2005-09-18T01:53:00.000Z

Iran recently re-opened its nuclear research program (see my earlier article here). Now, they have declared that they are ready to share this nuclear ability with other impoverished nations! Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated promises that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons. Then he added: "Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need." Due to their need? The only need that these nations have is to jihad against Americans. I wouldn't trust Iran or any other Middle Eastern country (barring Israel, of course) with nukes or any other nuclear ability for a single minute, let alone decades! To read the full article from CBS, click here. In Him, D3

Roe v Wade? No, Man's Opinion v God's Law!

2005-09-17T01:22:00.000Z

I'm posting one of my assigned essays for my Legal Assistant Course through OakBrook. It's quite dense, but if you are interested in Roe v Wade or want to fall asleep, this article is for you!

Roe versus Wade can be considered to be the height of our government’s rebellion against God. To be sure, there have been more heinous judgments since then, but in this case the ever-rising conflict of man’s opinion against God’s law can be most clearly seen. It is to our benefit to examine this case to better understand the problems that riddle our culture today. The argument by the Court centers on the concept of “personal liberty” as possessed by the mother. This concept is based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that no state law can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It is on this one word, “liberty,” that the Court’s argument rests.

Another important reference to “liberty” exists in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. . . .” Here, the Founders pointed out that our rights proceed from and are dependent on our Creator; that we as human beings are subject to a higher power than the government. This reflects a God-centered basis for authority, where each jurisdiction is appointed by God to secure the rights that were divinely given in the first place.

Sadly, however, our Supreme Court has forsaken this Biblically-based system for one formed by man. Our Founders felt that it was necessary to anchor their legal philosophy in our inherent, God-given, unalienable rights; an “idealistic” philosophy of law, wherein all judgments are based on an objective, “ideal” standard. Instead of following the Founder’s lead, today’s Courts have begun to look at legal procedure from a “realistic” mindset, weighing out competing “interests” compared to changing societal norms.

In Roe versus Wade, the court claimed that the right of “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment was broad enough to cover personal privacy and physical freedom. This was then extrapolated to include a woman’s “right” to “terminate” her pregnancy. However, their reasoning fails miserably.

John Jay, the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, stated that we are a Christian nation. As Christians, we are accountable to God alone for our personal actions. If, as the court seemed to posit, pregnancy is solely the “mother’s” ordeal, than the decision to have an abortion would be outside of the civil government’s authority. Unfortunately for the Supreme Court, they fail to point this out in their case. Instead, they gesture violently towards the Fourteenth Amendment, calling the Texas law forbidding abortion an “infringement of the woman’s right of privacy”.

Moreover, the bench covered up the rights of the unborn in a cloak of deception. By feigning concentration on the woman’s “right of privacy”, and weighing this against the “state’s interests”, they successfully swept the unalienable God-given right of life beneath the carpet of a “realistic” legal philosophy.

Recall that the Declaration spoke of the God-given right to life as being inherent and unalienable. In other words, the personal rights of every human being: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, cannot be weighed out or exchanged. They are irrevocable and cannot be compromised. Such rights are in sharp contrast to the Court’s assumed “right to privacy”, which they admit is “not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.”

If the supposed “right” of a woman to “terminate her pregnancy” does indeed exist, it is but a “qualified” right, this is still somewhat duplicitous. An inherent right is by nature unqualified. The philosophical concept of a right is based on an unchanging principle; if a right can be weighed out subjectively it is nothing more than a temporary privilege. A qualified right is a contradiction of terms. However, the Court has decreed that this new concept of a “qualified right” exists in the Constitution. Roe versus Wade was not a comparison of a state’s regulatory interests with privacy rights. This case was a battle between a supposed, Constitutional, “qualified” right and a God-given, unqualifiable right affirmed in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence!

When men reject the clear “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, they inevitably end by pitting their own, subjective truth against the Law of God.

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for . . . mortal man. . . .” (Romans 1:21-23)

God help our nation!

In Him, D3

California Judge Rules Patriotic Pledge Unconstitutional

2005-09-16T00:06:00.000Z

Today, a federal California Judge ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. This is a ruling that is sure to be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, probably under the judgment of John Roberts, whose Senate confirmation hearings ended today.

Michael Newdow, the vehement anti-pledge atheist, was barred from bringing suit the last time he tried because he lacked custody of the child he was claiming to protect. However, now he represents other parents who also object to their children hearing the phrase "under God". As a result of this, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has ruled, based on an earlier District Court decision, that this phrase violates the "Establishment" clause of the First Amendment and therefore must be stricken from the pledge.

Karlton has issued a statement saying that he is prepared to sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge in California until further notice. His full decision can be downloaded here.

In their lawsuit, each of the adult plaintiffs testified that they were made to feel like "political outsiders" due to the government's "embrace of Christian monotheism." Karlton claims that his decision is "one which will satisfy no one involved in the debate" but which "accords with my duty as a judge of a subordinate court." He is referring to the earlier decision by a higher district court which ruled in favor of Newdow the last time.

Such a decision as this one will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Newdow's chances there look pretty bleak. FOX News Correspondent Megyn Kendall on the Brit Hume show had this to say about this issue:

"In my opinion this does not look like a court that is ready to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance. When they punted the first time, several of the justices, including Rehnquist, O’Connor and Thomas all wrote concurring opinions saying we should kick this thing out on the merits, too. We shouldn’t just punt on the procedural ground, we should throw it out on the merit . . . everybody concurred that it ought to be thrown out."

You can view the full transcript of the Brit Hume Show here.

The Washington, D.C.-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a party to the case, has announced that it will be appealing the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

It seems that even though the Pledge of Allegiance has been temporarily taken from California, it will be restored, as the Supreme Court Bench doesn't seem likely to strike it down. However, it is a shame that such an absurd case has come this far. Karlton's decision stated that "the pledge's reference to God violates school children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." His claim that he is only following the decision of a higher court is hogwash. "Coercive requirement to affirm God?" Give me a break!

In case you haven't seen it lately, the First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So Congress can't establish a particular denomination as the national religion. I don't see anything there that would make school children's acknowledgement of the fact that God exists "unconstitutional"!

Can any of you readers explain this to me? It seems to me like Old Judge Karlton needs to see a psychiatric specialist or something.

In Him,

Supreme Court Oath of Office

2005-09-14T18:21:00.000Z

As a student of OakBrook College of Law, I receive articles written by the college staff on a regular basis. This is an article The Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges take the following oath of office: I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ______ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God. The language of this oath is not in the Constitution, like the oath for the President. The Congress has prescribed the wording of the oath. See 28 U.S.C. 453. I wonder what impact it would have if Congress modified the oath of office for judges to include a commitment to the principles of the Declaration. This could be done as follows: " ... under the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of the United States. So help me God." As you know, an oath of office is a serious matter. Maybe this language would cause the judges to consider the relevancy of the philosophy of government articulated in the Declaration when interpreting and applying specific provisions in the Constitution. Robert J. Barth Associate Dean

Refuting a refutation of supposed attacks on evolution

2005-09-12T22:25:00.000Z

On my joint-owned blog, The Truth About Macroevolution, we had a comment left by a John Connolly that, instead of giving evidence for evolutionism, gave 15 rebuttals of what he considered to be creationist attacks on evolution.

As far as we can tell, he copied the article verbatim from The Scientific American. John Rennie, the editor in chief of the Scientific American, wrote the article in early 2002. The full editorial can be viewed here.

Since this article is rather long, I won't post the entire thing here. Instead, I'll respond point-by-point, email style, significantly cutting down the original.

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt.

"Massing evidence.". Isn't it strange that no matter how much I beg them, evolutionists have yet to present one valid point of evidence that can even come close to holding water?

Some anti-evolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Schools are supposed to teach objective truth. If it is obvious to the reasonable person (scientist, layman, etc.) that it is objectively true that God created the universe, shouldn't it be taught in schools?

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism.

It is of interest that the majority of cases concerning this issue deal with teachers that are "besieged" by the government and by secular science in an attempt to stop them from teaching the truth of Creation.

Next, The Scientific American lists 15 common arguments against evolution and their summary "refutations".

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

He goes on to give a long analysis explaining that when scientists call something a "theory", it doesn't mean that it is a theory along the lines of the scientific method or that they distrust it; it is a theory just like the Theory of General Relativity. I understand that. However, we contend that evolution never even made it past hypothesis level; it is a theory along the lines of the scientific method only if you give it quite a bit of slack (see my article for further explanation). In subsequent defense against the allegation that evolution relies on indirect evidence:

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

This fails to realize that the so-called "evidences" for evolution are much more indirect than subatomic particle theory. The difference is this: subatomic particles exist in the present. Evolutionism is a speculation that states that, in the past, natural selection and mutations combined to turn molecules into monkeys into men. Since we don't see this happening today, this is an unobservable speculation about the past; it has nothing to do with repeatable natural processes that we see around us (like subatomic particles).

2. Natural selection. . . . (read the rest of this article)

Global Warming: Putting the cart before the horse!

2005-09-11T23:40:00.000Z

A recent article that I wrote concerning Hurricane Katrina and global warming sparked a lively discussion about the subject in the comments section. So, I've decided to write a longer article dealing expressly with the global warming controversy.

The concept of global warming arises from the existence of greenhouse gases. These molecules (Carbon Dioxide, Ozone, Methane,and many others not produced by man) trap heat from the sun and hold it to the earth, keeping it a comfortable temperature. If it were not for these gases, the earth would radiate nearly all its heat back into space at night, freezing each and every one of us when it's dark and frying us in the daytime.

Naturally, a major imbalance in the amount of greenhouse gas would either result in superheating or supercooling of the earth, both of which would be disastrous to our health. Since the time of the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) produced by the hand of man has increased dramatically. This means that if we don't stop this, our atmosphere will get too hot, right?

Wrong. CO2 is only one of many, many gases that act in this wise. You can click on this link to see a long list of greenhouse agents at Scorecard.org. Also, the overall amount of greenhouse gas produced by man compared to that produced by natural process is hugely unbalanced; this site points out that human activity produced only 0.28% of the full amount of greenhouse gas that is cycled through yearly. So the propensity for any imbalance being a simple natural fluctuation is huge.

But, in any case, there has been a large increase in atmospheric levels of CO2. The figure below, taken from this site, shows just how much:

Looks pretty bad, doesn't it? But take a look at the bottom of the chart. This graph has been truncated, or cut off at the bottom. The span of the chart is from 250 ppm to 360 ppm; only 31% of the actual length of the chart. In other words, the actual CO2 growth line is just as long but only a third as harsh.

So, is there a corresponding temperature increase that matches the CO2 increase? The answer is a resounding NO! The data given by environmentalist wackos would seem to suggest that it is increasing; see this image from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

However, the proof is in the pudding yet again. Take a look at the temperature span: from -0.8 degrees C to +0.8 degrees. That's a full graph span of only about 2 degrees Fahrenheit! A more honest example of this data would be as follows:

What happened to all the crazy ups and downs? This graph shows a y-scale spanning 8 degrees Celcius instead of the paltry 1.6 degrees Celcius. A change in the temperature of 1.6 degrees is not significant, especially when it varies as much as is shown in the chart. A change of 8 degrees is . . . which is exactly what we don't see. It is likely that this increase of 0.15 degrees is just natural fluctuations.

So why isn't the increase in man-made CO2 mirrored by an increase in temperature? As I pointed out before, man-made CO2 is only a small fraction of the huge amount of greenhouse gas. We don't know how much CO2 would cause a noticeable increase . . . would tripling the CO2 do the trick? How about increasing it by a factor of 10? 100? We simply don't know. However, it is obvious that global warming won't produce significant change for a long, long, time. Some people have claimed that the increase in CO2 is "building up" for a huge increase in the temperature. But such speculation is nothing more than "the stuff that dreams are made of."

When their data has failed them, the environmentalists inevitably come up with their last defense: the environmentally correct Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager basically points out that a non-Christian has nothing to gain if they are right and everything to lose if they are wrong.

The members of PETA and EPA always turn this around like this: "Well, since we don't know how much more CO2 it will take, we'd better be safe than sorry! If we are wrong and the CO2 didn't cause global warming, than we've lost nothing, but if we are right, then we will have gained everything!" Sounds appealing, but no cigar. The costs to cut down on greehouse gas output are simply enormous compared to the highly speculative benefit of decreasing the temperature .01 degrees.

The environmental wackos have put the cart before the horse.

In Him,

Who's Really at Fault?

2005-09-11T01:37:00.000Z

After the devastation from Hurricane Katrina has begun to come under control, hundreds have begun playing the blame game. "Bush didn't do this." "The National Guard didn't do that." "The Federal government should've responded quicker." But oh, we can't possibly cast any blame on the Mayor of the Big Easy or the Lousiana governor. Everyone knows that Bush caused the whole hurricane in the first place.

I received a forwarded email with an article from some reporter in Florida. Who knows if it actually is from a reporter who's been "researching what went on before the storm hit", but the author makes quite a few excellent points nonetheless. Take a look.

I think all of Mayor Nagin's pomp and posturing is going to bite him hard in the near future as the lies and distortions of his interviews are coming to light. (Mayor Nagin claimed when the National guard arrived, the men were sitting around playing cards and would not respond to his pleas for help in evacuation.)
On Friday night before the storm hit Max Mayfield of the National Hurricane Center took the unprecedented action of calling Nagin and Blanco personally to plead with them to begin MANDATORY evacuation of New Orleans and they said they'd take it under consideration. This was after the NOAA buoy 240 miles south had recorded 68' waves before it was destroyed. President Bush spent Friday afternoon and evening in meetings with his advisors and administrators drafting all of the paperwork required for a state to request federal assistance (and not be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act or having to enact the Insurgency Act). Just before midnight Friday evening the President called Governor Blanco and pleaded with her to sign the request papers so the federal government and the military could legally begin mobilization and call up. He was told that they didn't think it necessary for the federal government to be involved yet. After the President's final call to the governor she held meetings with her staff to discuss the political ramifications of bringing federal forces. It was decided that if they allowed federal assistance it would make it look as if they had failed so it was agreed upon that the feds would not be invited in.
Saturday before the storm hit the President again called Blanco and Nagin requesting they please sign the papers requesting federal assistance, that they declare the state an emergency area, and begin mandatory evacuation. After a personal plea from the President Nagin agreed to order an evacuation, but it would not be a full mandatory evacuation, and the governor still refused to sign the papers requesting and authorizing federal action. In frustration the President declared the area a national disaster area before the state of Louisiana did so he could legally begin some advanced preparations. Rumor has it that the President's legal advisers were looking into the ramifications of using the insurgency act to bypass the Constitutional requirement that a state request federal aid before the federal government can move into state with troops - but that had not been done since 1906 and the Constitutionality of it was called into question to use before the disaster.
Throw in that over half the federal aid of the past decade to New Orleans for levee construction, maintenance, and repair was diverted to fund a marina and support the gambling ships. Toss in the investigation that will look into why the emergency preparedness plan submitted to the federal government for funding and published on the city's website was never implemented and in fact may have been bogus for the purpose of gaining additional federal funding as we now learn that the organizations identified in the plan were never contacted or coordinating into any planning - though the document implies that they were.
The suffering people of New Orleans need to be asking some hard questions as do we all, but they better start with why Blanco refused to even sign the multi-state mutual aid pack activation documents until Wednesday which further delayed the legal deployment of National Guard from adjoining states. Or maybe ask why Nagin keeps harping that the President should have commandeered 500 Greyhound busses to help him when according to his own emergency plan and documents he claimed to have over 500 busses at his disposal to use between the local school busses and the city transportation busses - but he never raised a finger to prepare them or activate them.
This is a sad time for all of us to see that a major city has all but been destroyed and thousands of people have died with hundreds of thousands more suffering, but it's certainly not a time for people to be pointing fingers and trying to find a bigger dog to blame for local corruption and incompetence. Pray to God for the survivors that they can start their lives anew as fast as possible and we learn from all the mistakes to avoid them in the future.

An excellent article, don't you think?

In Him,