Important Messages

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Follow up with Michael - Part 3

Michael's last response can be found here in which he included many videos in regards to different points he was trying to make. I will try to respond to the major points below, his responses will be included in bold and my responses will follow.

Michael said: So basically when it comes to the mystery of life, they answer the mystery with another mystery; basically not providing an answer at all. There is nothing rational about that, so no I do not agree with you regardless of what theology shares such view. Just stating “God did it” for every unanswered question is just a simple response for the simple minded.

Never do I just state "God did it" although I would be completely justified in doing so. When you look at a building you don't need any proof to say someone built it, the building itself is absolute proof. It is perfectly rational to look at a building and conclude that someone built it. In the same way, when I look at Creation I don't need any further proof to know that someone created all of it, i.e. God. Creation itself is 100%, scientific, absolute proof that there is a Creator. To deny that is to believe that something came from nothing, which is a scientific impossibility.

Furthermore, throughout our dialogue, I have given you many reasons, examples and evidence that points to a supernatural cause for the universe and life as we know it. I have given you examples from fulfilled prophecy, archaeology, Biblical consistency, scientific foreknowledge and biology but you have denied it all. You ask for evidence and I have given you evidence. There is much more evidence, but I don't think any evidence would convince you. This is why I started with presuppositions and tried to show you that it's not about evidence, it's about how you interpret the evidence based on your presuppositions.

I can name many creationists, especially the ones today who repeat the same lie (among many other lies) that there are no transitional fossils, like Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, Lee Strobel, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham do constantly.

They are not lying. If there was a real transitional form that proved evolution it would be all over every newspaper around the world and everyone would know about it. There is no transitional form that even secular scientists agree is proof of evolution. It doesn't exist. Kent Hovind has had a long standing $250,000 award for anyone who can give him proof of evolution and to date, that money has never been claimed, because that proof doesn't exist.

…provided a link to a full library of transitional fossils in my last blog, but even to this day creationists will claim that none exist. If that is not distorting facts, I don’t know what is.

Again, even secular scientists would not agree on that "full library" of transitional forms. All you have to do is go to the link you sent me and see how often they use terms like "probably, could have, maybe, likely, etc." This is not science; it is mere speculation and interpretations based on their presuppositions about the past. Every one of those supposed transitional forms can be interpreted from a creationist perspective as well.

Or how about my favorite when creationists to this day continue to quote Darwin claiming the eye could not evolve, that Darwin said he thought it was “absurd to the highest degree.” But if you read the next sentence it shows Darwin did indeed thought the eye could evolve, and he even explained how.

Michael, would you ever believe that given enough time, a digital camera could evolve from nothing. Or how about a 747, or a computer, or a crayon, or a pencil, or an automobile. Of course not, you're smarter than that. You know those things were created. Their existence alone is proof that they were created, someone had to create them. So how could you believe that something as complex as the human eye, or even the simplest known bacteria, which is more complex than any of those manmade objects, somehow happened on its own? You claim that people that think there is a creator are simple minded. That is because it is simple to see. Look around you. Look at the sun, moon, stars, your body, your brain, your eyes, your circulatory system, your lungs, your nervous system, etc. They all testify to a Creator simply by their existence.

Or how about creationist cartoons, seminars, and films that spoon feed their audience that evolution leads to evils like Hitler and racism.

Michael, if you don't believe God exists, then I don't even know why you would mention something like evil and Hitler. Do you believe what Hitler did was evil? I assume you do. But if you take God out of the equation then what is evil? If evil exists, you must believe the opposite of evil, namely good exists as well. If good and evil exist, then you assume there must be some moral law by which you differentiate between good and evil. If there exists a moral law, there must exist a moral law giver, i.e. God. That moral law giver, God, is exactly who you deny exists. But if God or the moral law giver doesn't exist, then there cannot exist a moral law, and then there is no basis for you to differentiate between good and evil. So, if you believe what Hitler did was evil, you are borrowing from the Judeo-Christian worldview while at the same time trying to verbally deny its existence.

Creationists take joy in distorting what science overall is.

This is absurd. Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. There are 1000s of creation scientists across the globe that have gone to school and researched to get their PhDs right alongside the same scientists that believe in evolution. They undoubtedly understand what science is and how it works. And this shouldn’t be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. The universe is orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible. On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the by-products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by the Lord as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Ultimately, science is possible because the Bible is true.

At this point, Michael pointed out why Noah's Ark would not possibly work.

The article below shows that the Ark of Noah was completely feasible. There is plenty of evidence for the feasibility of the Ark in the article. If you are truly open minded, please read it and consider the points the article makes.

So we cannot make conclusions because our senses are not reliable? All the more reason to have a skeptical mind like me, however the beauty of science is that it can be tested multiple times from brilliant men and women around the world, eliminated rooms of error.

Michael, I feel like you are just trying to argue everything I say for arguments sake. I never said our senses aren't reliable. I said, in science, we presuppose that they are reliable; otherwise our observations could not be trusted. I was just showing some of the presuppositions scientists must have in order to do science.

1) Isn't reliable senses a presupposition for any human endeavor? If one cannot assume reliable senses, how does that bolster the case for a deity or deities and magic as an explanation for the world and the universe we perceive?

Yes, reliable senses are a presupposition for almost anything. I am glad you understand that. In your previous response, you said that science has no presuppositions but I am glad you are starting to see now how we all have presuppositions. I am not saying we cannot assume reliable sense, I am saying that we do assume reliable senses and the reason we can do so is because God upholds the universe in a uniform and consistent manner. Genesis 8:22 says "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." In other words, things will carry on consistently from day to day. This is WHY we can assume our senses will be the same tomorrow as they are today and this is also WHY we can observe something with our senses today and can assume the same would hold true tomorrow under the same conditions. Then we can begin to formulate hypotheses and theories and make scientific predictions. If there is no Biblical God who upholds the universe in a consistent manner, there is no basis or reason why we should assume that things will be the same tomorrow as they are today. If we can't assume things will behave consistently then we could not do science as we know it. Thus, the very underlying principle for why we can do science is rooted in the nature of the Judeo Christian God who is upholding the universe and His creation by His power. As I stated earlier, without God, science would be impossible.

2) Assuming that when you refer to a constant speed of light when you say "light travels in an orderly way," what empirical evidence can you offer that would lead one to suspect that the speed of light varies and what physical processes do you propose as a mechanism capable of causing the speed of light to vary?

Michael, again you are trying to turn something I stated into an argument. I never said the speed of light can vary. It travels in an orderly way and this is another presupposition we make when making scientific observations. We take it for granted that light is constant. The basis for this fact is because as I previously mentioned, God upholds the universe in an orderly and consistent manner. In an atheistic universe, there is no logical basis as to why the speed of light could not just randomly change tomorrow. Again, this is why the Judeo Christian worldview is foundational to the nature of scientific endeavors. Even though many atheistic scientists will deny this truth, they take it to the laboratory with them every day when they assume that the universe will behave today as it did yesterday.

3) What does "the universe continually behaves in an orderly, logical way" mean?

This means that it is not chaotic and random, but is consistent from day to day. If we stubbed our toe getting out of bed this morning and it really hurt, we can expect that same feeling to occur if we stubbed our toe tomorrow morning. The basis for this is that God is upholding the universe in a consistent manner from day to day.

If you mean that we presume that there are physical constants governing how the universe functions, then doesn't repeated and repeatable experiences validate the assumption? If I observe several people jumping off a cliff, and the result is invariably a plummet followed serious injury or death, doesn't that validate the idea of physical constants?

Again, I am not saying that we can't assume physical constants, I am saying that the reason we can is because God is consistent and He upholds the universe in a consistent manner. Alternatively, if there is no God and there are just blind chemical reactions happening all around us, there is no reason why those chemical reactions must be consistent from one day to the next. Why couldn’t gravity reverse itself and when people jumped off the cliff they floated away from earth. There is no reason why they cannot change in an instant and everything as we know it would be different. If my nervous system began behaving in a different way tomorrow morning, I could stub my toe and it could feel absolutely wonderful. If there is no God upholding the universe in a consistent manner, there would be no reason why this scenario could not or should not happen.

4) Inductive reasoning is a part of many human activities. Are you suggesting that the use of inductive reasoning and forensics in crime investigation, for example, is invalid?

Never would I suggest that inductive reasoning is invalid. Again, the reason induction (i.e. assuming that something I do today will be repeatable in the future under the same conditions) is valid is because God is consistently upholding the universe and what we do today will be repeatable tomorrow under the same conditions.

I think it is interesting that you are so skeptical about the Bible, Jesus, Creation, etc. but you are so quick to jump on and endorse "some guy next door" who posts a video on YouTube. You assume everything they say has to be true when they are basically putting a video together in their garage. If you are skeptical about everything you encounter you would think you would hesitate to endorse Joe Schmoe on YouTube so quickly. I think you are not skeptical about everything; you just don't want to believe the Bible because of the moral implications. If you believe the Bible, then you are morally accountable for your actions and I think the thought of that might put a wet blanket on some of the things in life that you enjoy doing.

When you claimed that we both look at the same evidence, I pointed out that is not the case. Biologists have and test ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy...

Creation scientists have all that same data and evidence to observe that evolutionists do. It is not like creation scientists have their own set of genes and proteins that they study; it is all the same. I'm not sure why you insist that they are different. The conclusions they come to are different, but again, this is because of their presuppositions that they bring to interpret the evidence. All the evidence is the same.

For example, you look at a fossil and immediately think "evolution and millions of years" and I think "God's judgment and buried during Noah's flood". To prove this to you, imagine if you were to apply carbon dating to a fossil of a dinosaur bone and the carbon dating showed that the fossil was 6000 years old. Immediately, you would think that there was an error with the test and rerun it and would already be thinking that the age should be millions of years. Even if it came up as 100,000 years old, you would still date it as millions of years old because that's what you believe it is, not because of what the scientific data says. This shows that you are pre-committed to a certain age for a fossil rather than letting the scientific data speak for itself. This happens all the time in real science. We find Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones and diamonds that are supposed to be hundreds of millions or even billions of years old. This shows that they are only thousands of years old, but scientists will still insist in a very old age in spite of what the scientific data says.

“And you do not need proof” DING DING DING DING. You just made it clear that you do not require proof. Why? Because your side is based on faith. Faith is belief with little or no evidence at all.

As I said earlier, you don't need proof because it’s already right in front of you. In order for you to know that a building had a builder or a painting had a painter, you don’t need any further proof than the building or the painting. The same is true with Creation. We don't need any further proof than the Creation itself to know there is a Creator. It takes no faith to say that Creation is absolute 100% proof of a Creator just like it takes no faith to say a building proves there was a builder. This should be obvious to any thinking adult.

In an earlier response, I told you that I believe the Bible gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I gave you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants and I talked about that. I explained that when I build my thinking on this presupposition, it makes sense of what we see and observe around us. You have not shown me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence.

Make no mistake Jason, THIS IS AN INTELLECTUAL ISSUE. If your head hurts from thinking too much about this stuff, just say so. If not that, then the problem is that your faith demands that you should not think about your beliefs. This is why Martin Luther said “reason greatest enemy of faith,” because he knew damn well a thinking person can see through the crap. ...

Here are a few Creation Scientists that you might be familiar with:
  1. Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method.
  2. Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) Physics, Astronomy
  3. Johann Kepler (1571–1630) Scientific astronomy
  4. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
  5. Robert Boyle (1627–1691) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
  6. Isaac Newton (1642–1727) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator.
There is a more extensive list here. According to you, these were not “thinking people” and apparently could not “see through the crap.” Many of these men are considered “Fathers of Science” and when people refer to science standing today on the “shoulders of giants” these are the “giants” they are referring to. They are some of the smartest and intelligent men to contribute to the many fields of science.

Michael, you also throw a lot of quotes around here about faith being contrary to reason. My simple response to this is that it doesn't matter what Martin Luther or others say about reason, what matters is what the Bible says about it. Faith and reason actually go hand in hand. Without faith, you would not be able to reason because to reason you have to have faith in the laws of logic, which are immaterial and unobservable with our senses. Please take the time to carefully read the following paragraphs about what the Bible has to say about faith and reason.

The Bible actually encourages reason in Isaiah 1:18, "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. The Bible also tells us we are to have a good reason for what we believe, and we are to be always ready to share that reason with other people (1 Peter 3:15). So, as I have been trying to do with you Michael, I have attempted to show that belief in the Scriptures is reasonable, justified, and logically defensible. The Bible makes sense.

The Bible tells us we are also supposed to have faith. We are supposed to trust God and not lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5). The Bible tells us that the “just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11). Does that mean that we are supposed to trust God regardless of whether His words make sense to our understanding? Are we to accept the teachings of Scripture without regard to logic and reason, even if it does not make any sense? The apparent conflict between faith and reason troubles many people. But when they are properly understood in their biblical context any apparent conflict disappears. Yes, we are to have good reasons for what we believe, and we are also to have faith. In fact, without faith, we could not have reason, as I briefly mentioned above with the laws of logic.

Mark Twain once defined faith as “believing what you know ain’t so.” You stated above that “faith is belief with little or no evidence at all.” But is this what the Bible means when it uses the word faith? Not at all. The Bible does not promote a belief in the irrational or any type of unwarranted “blind faith.” Some people have said, “Faith takes over where reason leaves off.” Taken this way, rationality is seen as a bridge that reaches only partway across a great chasm; faith is needed to complete the bridge and reach the other side.

People who take this view would say that Christianity cannot be proven, that reason leads us most of the way to God and then we must make a “leap of faith” in order to say that Jesus is Lord. But this is not what God’s Word teaches about faith. The Bible itself tells us what faith is. Hebrews 11:1 tells us that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. So biblical faith is not blind but is strongly warranted confidence. The phrase “hoped for” does not imply a mere wishful thinking as in “I sure hope the weather is nice next week.” Rather, the Greek word for faith indicates a confident expectation: the kind of confidence we have when we have a good reason to believe something.

Biblically, faith is having confidence in something you have not experienced with your senses. Biblical faith is not “blind”; it’s not the act of “believing without a reason.” Just the opposite; biblical faith is the act of believing in something unseen for which we do have a good reason. For example, when we believe that God will keep a promise, this constitutes faith because we cannot “see” it and yet we have a good reason for it: God has demonstrated that He keeps His promises.

As many people have misunderstandings of faith, they also have misunderstandings of reason. Reason is a tool that God has given us that allows us to draw conclusions and inferences from other information, such as the information He has given us in His Word. Reason is an essential part of Christianity and as mentioned earlier, God tells us to reason (Isaiah 1:18) as we see the apostle Paul did in Acts 17:17.

For example, I could not know that I am saved apart from using reason. After all, the Bible nowhere says that “Jason Gallagher is saved”. Instead it tells me that “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). I have genuinely acknowledged that Jesus is Lord, and I believe that God raised Him from the dead. Therefore, I am saved. I must use logical reasoning to draw this conclusion.

Biblical faith and biblical reasoning actually work very well together. In fact, faith is a prerequisite for reason. As I touched on above, in order to reason about anything we must have faith that there are laws of logic which correctly prescribe the correct chain of reasoning. Since laws of logic cannot be observed with the senses, our confidence in them is a type of faith.

For the Christian, it is a reasonable, justified faith. The Christian would expect to find a standard of reasoning that reflects the thinking of the biblical God; that’s what laws of logic are. On the other hand Michael, you cannot account for laws of logic based on your worldview. Since laws of logic are necessary for reasoning, and since the Christian faith is the only faith system that can make sense of them, it follows that the Christian faith is the logical foundation for all reasoning (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). This isn’t to say, of course, that non-Christians cannot reason. Rather, it simply means they are being inconsistent when they reason; they are borrowing from a worldview contrary to the one they profess. So Michael, just like Dr. House, you use reason in your everyday life but you can only do so by borrowing from the Christian worldview, which you are trying to tell me does not exist or is a fairytale. Like many unbelievers, you are not being consistent with your worldview because you subconsciously rely upon Christian principles, such as logic, whenever you reason about anything. So as a Christian, I have a good reason for my faith. Ultimately, the Christian faith system makes reason possible.

Michael included, “As Dr. House once said “If you can reason with religious people, they would not be religious.””

Michael, you proclaim to be a skeptic but you jump on the bandwagon of any poster on YouTube or even Dr. House who says something that you think is true. This shows that your skepticism is not genuine as you claim but rather is narrowly focused on the Christian faith, Jesus Christ and the Bible.

Michael then says…This is why Jason I simply ask for something more. It is not much, while I remain open to all sides I cannot take them seriously until they provide evidence.

All I have done is provide evidence. I honestly question your openness to all sides because you have not done anything but argue every piece of evidence I have provided up to this point. If I continued to provide you with evidence, I think the same would continue. What sort of evidence would you like to see other than what I have already provided? Here is a summary of some of the evidence I have provided thus far:
  1. The foundational presuppositions required to do science (i.e. Induction, an orderly and consistent universe, reliable senses, light being constant, etc.) are all based on the Christian worldview. Without God, all of these presuppositions ultimately have no basis.
  2. Evil implies there is such a thing as good, which implies or assumes a moral law with which to differentiate between the two. A moral law implies a Moral Law Giver, who Michael is trying to disprove exists. If there is no Moral Law Giver, there is no moral law, there is no good and evil. Therefore, speaking about evil only makes sense if God exists.
  3. Faith and Reason – Reason is dependent on faith in the laws of logic, which are immaterial and unobservable by our senses. The Christian would expect to find a standard of reasoning that reflects the thinking of the biblical God; that’s what laws of logic are. On the other hand Michael, you cannot account for laws of logic based on your worldview where you exclude God.
  4.  I have given you evidence from Prophecy, Archaeology, Biblical Consistency, Scientific Foreknowledge and more, you just disagree with it. Nevertheless, it has been provided.
  5. Created Kinds and Natural Selection are completely consistent with how we observe animals reproducing and adapting to their environments today and reflect the Creation account in Genesis 1. What we see is consistent with what is revealed in Scripture.
If you want me to believe in Jesus, first you have to take the first basic step and provide proof of historical facts for him. Remember to leave a comment on my blog.

Michael, the evidence is overwhelmingly against you here and even the majority of atheistic historians will agree with me here. I read your history blog and my response to it would follow along the same lines as the quote below:

“In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by "the village atheist," bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.”

Please see the link here for evidence on the existence of Jesus.

To claim I never will believe the Bible is disproven by the fact I did once upon a time.

So then, it is safe to say that you were deceived back then when you thought the Bible was true? The question I would ask you is “Did you know the Lord”? If you did know the Lord, then you admit that God exists because you knew Him. If you didn’t know the Lord, you were never a Christian and therefore never truly believed the Bible. I pray that one day you will come to believe and put your trust in God’s Word. That is my hope for you!

You claim you are trying to save me, you along with the Muslims, Jews, etc. All of them can quit the pleading and just try to provide some sort of proof. I’m waiting.

Michael, see above for all the proof, or evidence, I have provided but you willingly deny. You have all the proof you will ever need. Remember, Creation proves a Creator just like a building proves a builder. However, you seem more eager to place your faith in random YouTube videos and Dr. House than the Lord God Almighty. This shows me that you are prejudiced towards the Bible and not truly open to all sides equally as you say.

You say I should humbly come to God, basically you are asking me to accept something exists without evidence and seek it out.

Again, see above for all the evidence that has been provided. I can provide more if you like. Even the Big Bang points to the existence of a Creator. Also, biblical faith is not “blind faith.” What I am asking you to do is place your faith in the Bible and Jesus Christ, something that is unseen, because there is ample evidence and good reason to do so. What is the one biggest stumbling block you have towards the Christian faith, the Bible, and Jesus Christ? Perhaps we can turn this into a question and answer where you provide me with one major question at a time about why you don’t believe the Bible or Jesus and I will respond one question at a time. That will help with the super-long blog responses as well.

Continuing to claim you want to save me from hell is feeble. This video at least shows were the concept of hell comes from.

Again, you are so quick to place all your faith in some random person’s video on YouTube and question the Word of God. It seems like your skeptical mind goes out the window when you logon to YouTube and look for videos that try to discredit Christianity. All I can say is that Hell is not a concept, it is a real place of eternal torment where the fire is never quenched and the worm never dies (Mark 9:48). It is a place of utter isolation where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Luke 13:28). I have heard personal testimonies from people who have died and came back and experienced the reality of hell first hand. When what they experience parallels what the Bible describes hell is like then it gives me reason to believe that what they experienced was real.

I continue to want to prevent you from facing God’s wrath on Judgment Day. You have broken His Commandments, as have I, and God will be absolutely just sending us to hell for eternity because of our sins against Him. His holiness demands that He punish sin wherever it is found. However, God is loving and merciful and does not want that for anyone. So He sent Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for your sin and mine and if you humble yourself, turn form your sins and place your faith in Jesus to save you, you have God’s promise that he will save you! Your death sentence can be commuted and you can go to heaven when you die and have a relationship with the living God starting today!

You may pray for me Jason, but I will think for you. I have read and considered each of your points, and I have explained why I do not find them convincing. In the future, if you want to convince me, please provide proof.

Michael, again, the proof is all around you. You just choose to ignore it. You even admit I have provided you evidence and you don’t find it convincing. I cannot convince you, nor is it my job to convince you. Only God can convince you and that won’t happen until you humble yourself and seek Him. But if you don’t believe He exists, then you will never seek Him, which is exactly what Scripture says. Read this passage from Hebrews 11:6: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” I hope you can see that it is reasonable to believe in God and I encourage you to seek Him, even if you are skeptical. Truly and honestly open your heart and ask God to reveal himself to you. Seek Him. Read His Word. Go to Church. Listen to sermons online. Seek answers to the questions you have about Christianity. If you seek him with all of your heart, he will reveal himself to you, that is a promise from God. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, go for it!

Thanks for the advice, and if I may, I have my own advice for you: Be skeptical, think about all things. Doubt is okay, doubt is humble. Stop taking things on faith, faith should not be used by grown adults in the 21st century. Use your head.

My friend made an interesting observation about your advice above. He observed that you don’t even take your own advice. Why don’t you approach everything with doubt and skepticism. Surely you have not brought this skepticism to all the YouTube videos you posted. And you are not very skeptical about science, especially evolutionary science? Do you ever apply that doubt you advise me to use to science? You are taking science on faith. You also take all of the videos you post above on faith (like the one that tries to explain away the reality of hell) and you immediately embrace it as truth. Also, he reminded me that true humility is admitting we don’t have all the answers (and that God does). Pride is the opposite, thinking we have all the answers and we are smart enough to figure everything out ourselves.

I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks for all of your responses so far, I hope you find it worthwhile. In the meantime, I will continue to pray for you. God Bless you, Michael.

1 comment:

  1. Finally made my response to this blog, found in link below,