From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

'Da Vinci Code' meets 'Star Trek'

It is unnerving that modern western evangelicalism has become such a flimsy entity that a poorly researched, here-today-gone-tomorrow paperback regurgitation of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail novel is actually a faith-shaker.
By Paul Viggiano

No thanks, I'll wait for the sequel: Dan Brown's next novel/movie, "The Gospel According to Fred Flintstone." That's the one where Barney and Wilma are having a secret affair and the Holy Grail is actually the offspring of Pebbles and Bam-Bam. Like "The Da Vinci Code," it's also fiction rooted in fact since there was actually a man named Barney who lived a long time ago.

To the young Christian who feels "The Da Vinci Code" plucking at their doubt-strings, I have one question: "Who are you going to believe, Dan Brown or the Bible?" It is unnerving that modern western evangelicalism has become such a flimsy entity that a poorly researched, here-today-gone-tomorrow paperback regurgitation of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail novel is actually a faith-shaker.

To the circle of teachers at that table in Starbucks who I overheard saying they "bought it," didn't any of you watch "Star Trek?" Can't you see a fantastic amalgamation of fact and fiction designed to rope you in? When Spock quotes Einstein, Albert Schweitzer and Vol from Bajor 9, the two genuine quotes are designed to lend credence to the fake one. In "Star Trek," the fake is pretty obvious (it's Vol). Not so with "The Da Vinci Code."

The book (and I assume the film) opens with a bold proclamation of "fact." Somewhere we figure out it's actually fiction, or historical fiction, or faction. This confusion is a great advantage when the facts don't fit the story -- he just starts making stuff up. For example:

• Brown didn't make up the Dead Sea Scrolls, but he thought it would add to the plot-line to have them discovered in the 1950s rather than the 1940s, when they actually were found. Of course, that may have just been poor research.

Brown's Constantine Conspiracy theory is redolent of Johnnie Cochran's O.J. defense, where the cops were bumbling investigators but master conspirators. Constantine was not a decision-maker at Nicea and if he changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, it must have been in one of his Shirley MacLaine pre-incarnations since that happened hundreds of years before his birth.

• Jesus, though a Jewish rabbi, was not required to be married; there were not 80 other gospels; The Priory of Scion was founded in 1956, not 1099; if Da Vinci's "Last Supper" included Mary Magdalene, then what happened to the Apostle John -- since there are only twelve others in the painting?

• Brown, speaking through his impeachable historian Leigh Teabing, is correct when informing the leading lady that the Bible didn't arrive by fax from heaven. But I'm not aware of any reputable theologian who holds that position. Verbal plenary inspiration means that men wrote, in their own words, the full and infallible message of God, moved by the Spirit of God.

• Brown's attack on Scripture due to the "countless translations" is a punch into thin air. The Bible is the most translated book in history. How does translating literature lessen its credibility?

• What Brown, and I'm sure the movie, fails to mention is that the extant manuscript evidence for the Bible is without parallel when compared with all other ancient literature; tens of thousands of manuscripts for the New Testament alone. A true Teabing, the reputable historian that he is, would recognize this.

He would also recognize:

The Bible's singularity as a protected, and mass-produced document, under the watchful eye of thousands and then millions; successful unauthorized editions, or editing of any kind, would be virtually impossible.

The majesty of its style and the agreement of all its parts. Sixty-six books written by 40 authors over a 1,500-year period, and there is not a single contradiction or genuine discrepancy. Eight people witnessing an automobile accident can scarcely give consistent accounts of what took place minutes after the incident. How can Teabing not see the flawless and unsullied beauty of this document?

But in the final analysis, using even these reputable resources to defend the Bible is like me using my Casio to defend the atomic clock. The Scriptures are self-evident and self-authenticating. To read them is to know they are true. Brown versus the Scriptures loses on all counts. In terms of history, facts, reason and truth, the Browns of history have yet to win a legitimate battle. So they resort to fiction.

From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

Can anyone be held responsible?

The admitted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui escaped the death penalty in part because of his rough upbringing. How has that become an excuse for evil behavior?
By Paul Viggiano

Zacarias Moussaoui, who played a role in the terrorist attacks of 9-11, was not given the death penalty. The jurors decided life in prison was the appropriate punishment. I didn't follow the case, so I am not sure what his role in 9-11 was.

Perhaps he deserved no more or less than this sentence. But the reports behind the jurors' reasoning for their decision are disconcerting. It was based upon mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances occur when some attendant factor of the crime decreases the penalty.

It's common knowledge that America's legal process has its roots in biblical law; this process includes the notion of mitigating circumstances. For example, spontaneity versus premeditation in the taking of someone's life may mitigate or lessen the sentence since the passions of the moment are taken into consideration.

The Bible also addresses the mitigating circumstances surrounding things like the stealing of food in times of duress or lying when the lives of innocent are threatened.

But the mitigating circumstances cited in the recent verdict of Zacarias Moussaoui do not flow from biblical law. They flow from another world view -- a materialist world view. Materialism, simply put, rejects the notion of immaterial concepts, including God.

Materialists believe all things are proceeding from an initial explosion (a big bang). According to consistent materialists, we are all just matter in motion -- molecules flying through space. This being the case, we can no more be held responsible for our actions than a piece of shrapnel can be held responsible for where it lands when the hand grenade explodes.

We see more and more cases utilizing this world view to mitigate, and sometimes completely exonerate, those who commit crimes.

Moussaoui's mitigating circumstances were not the thoughtless passions of the moment. Nor were they based upon coercion or desperation. They were not based upon ignorance of what he was doing or who he was doing it to.

The mitigating circumstances cited in the jurors' verdict form included things like a dysfunctional family, a hostile relationship with his mother, a physically and emotionally abusive father, and being subjected to racism in France.

I have little doubt that Moussaoui's life was miserable. But there must be at least 40 million dysfunctional families in our country alone; I'm pretty sure mine was. Just how dysfunctional must your family be before the laws no longer apply to you?

I'd like to say it's wrong to be abusive, but if mom and dad are just matter in motion, how can you blame them? And when Erik Menendez aimed and pulled the trigger, putting an end to that matter which had previously been his mother, his lawyer was arguing that he shouldn't be blamed either.

Do we not all know at least 20 people (I know a lot more than 20) who fall into the categories listed in the jury's explanation of why Moussaoui punishment was lessened? Are we truly prepared to say that these things reduce culpability in the murdering of thousands of innocent civilians? If this is the case, I am not sure who can be found guilty of anything.

As a pastor, I am not insensitive to the way the sins of the parents can affect their children. I sit across from wounded souls in regular counseling sessions. At the same time, as an apologist and counselor, I have as strong a conviction that a person's past, including my own, never justifies evil behavior.

There is a big difference between recognizing a genetic or environmental tendency that gives one a propensity toward evil and using heredity or surroundings to somehow rationalize sinful or criminal behavior. Wives may fail a hundred different ways when it comes to pleasing their husbands, but it never justifies his committing adultery.

There is little doubt in my mind that most pedophiles can make an argument that their perverted desires were implanted in them through some event in their history -- it may even be genetic. Are we prepared to alleviate culpability of child molesters because we have an awareness of those elements that lead to their evil behavior? What if we found out that Jeffrey Dahmer had a gene that gave him an intense desire to kill and eat people -- do we rescind his sentence?

When Moussaoui shouted, "America you lost," I'm not sure what he had in mind. But if he meant we lost because we're abandoning biblical law for materialistic, methodological naturalism, he has a good point.

A Final Analysis (?)

Aside from Ehud’s last analysis, it looks like our discussion with Anon has come to a close…or has it? That’ll just depend on Anon if he continues to read our little corner of the blogsphere. :-) What I write now may give cause for Anon to continue to discuss, but if not, then we can move on to other subjects.


Definitions

In the case of “religious”, Anon poo-poos the dictionary definition because it reflects popular usage versus the actual meaning. But in a worldview that relies on convention and consensus, the populace has determined its meaning. And since his worldview cannot account for universal laws, the definition of “religious” really has no “actual meaning.” The populace has pragmatically changed it to suit its needs.

But Anon will have none of that, even though he is in the minority. His definition is not the popular usage, but he implies that his definition is the actual meaning. On what grounds can he make this assertion? In his worldview, there is no “actual meaning,” so all he can assert is what he likes for it to be.

And don’t we see this also in his definition of “faith”? He says that “faith” is blind and nothing will dissuade him from that definition. There is, of course, such a dictionary definition, but it isn’t the only one. How one uses the word in the context of a discussion would help determine what it means to have “faith”. Where I have used the word “faith” and “faithful”, no where have I implied in the context that such a faith would be blind.

Still, that doesn’t matter to Anon. So long as words as “religious” and “faith” are used in proximity, he will stick to his own definitions and impose them wherever he pleases in order to shut down the opposition. Well, at least his actions are more consistent with evolution where he’s got to look out for A-#1. Forget reason, forget definitions.


History

Anon says that Ehud’s arguments aren’t arguments, but appeals to the opinions of historical figures, as if they really don’t count in the debate. Why? He offers no reason other than sheer assertion. So when faced with insurmountable historical evidence, he chooses to dismiss them, never to address them. Oddly enough, he'll use history wherever it suits him, but aren't those opinions also? It's either his own opinion or opinions of historians from where he gets his historical information from. Perhaps they don't count in the debate as well. Or maybe, juuuuust maybe, both sides are actually giving arguments.


Science, Empiricism and Verifiable Facts

In one fell swoop, Anon slits his own throat in stating that “In science, nothing can be proven.” How this can even come from an empiricist is just mind-boggling. Science is the epitome of empiricism! But then, to make things really mind-Jell-oing, he says, “At best, there are strong theories that haven’t been disproven.” Can science even work under both these definitions? Let’s find out.

I shall theorize that on the Ganymede moon, 600 feet below the surface, there lives a multitude of multicolored winged unicorns. At this time, science cannot disprove my theory, therefore, the theory holds! What ridiculous nonsense! Strong theories are strong because there are scientifically proven things about them. If science can't prove anything, then my weak theory can never be shown to be weak and, at present time, it can not be disproven.

And to cap his contradictions in science, he says, “Both micro- and macro- evolutionary processes have been verified in laboratory settings.” But, “in science, nothing can be proven,” so in actuality, nothing has been verified. Maybe Anon has a different meaning for “proven” and “verified” that we just don’t know. Yeah, perhaps he does since he’ll only believe “verified facts”, as opposed to “unverified facts.” Hmmmm…maybe “facts” also has a different definition. Damn these pesky dictionaries and oxymorons be damned!

Stating that evolution is true is just patently false. There has been no verification/proof that non-intelligence suddenly has intelligence, let alone verification/proof of a mutation that would lead to the diversity of kinds, classes, species, whatever. And to say that science has not been able to disprove them, I refer back to my Unicorn Theory. To Anon’s benefit, here is a little something for him. Leading US magazine exposes evolution’s tall tales!

As for radiocarbon dating, here is my link: What about carbon dating?.


-Ists and -Isms

Anon tries to escape from being labeled a humanist, evolutionist, naturalist or materialist, though I don’t see how. In Christendom, there are variances in non-essential beliefs, but in the essential beliefs, we are united. This is also true within atheism. They are united in their essential beliefs of humanism, evolution, naturalism, and materialism, but they can most certainly differ on non-essentials. Anon, being an atheist, fits in perfectly as a humanist, evolutionist, naturalist and a materialist from what can be gathered from his comments. This is inescapable. (Thanks to Ehud for clarifying this earlier.)


Epistemology

In regards to getting down to the nitty-gritty of Anon’s epistemology, Anon refuses to answer the tough questions. Instead, he picks and chooses phrases to comment against, sometimes taking them out of the context from which they came from. One only needs to read through his comments to see he avoids the hard-hitting questions that would remove the floor from underneath his worldview. He cannot account for ethics, yet he uses ethics. How can he derive ethics from his evolutionist worldview? He answers in a circular manner (feelings, majority happiness, feelings, lather, rinse, repeat). In his worldview, it starts with man and ends with man. To that, I reiterate what Sean said:

Without God and his law, I have no reason to care about you or little Johnny down the street. Please tell me what is my motivation to "work together to make it as comfortable for everyone."


Opposing Worldviews

Anon shows that he has no clue how to evaluate a worldview. He says:

I've come to realize that you will automatically assume that any worldview other than yours in nonsense, no matter what.

When you assume anything, then you will always conclude the same no matter what your reasoning.

I realize that I will never get through to you. You've already made your choice, and you will rationalize away anything that disagrees with it.

All of you will continue to rationalize away anything that contradicts your worldview

But I'm also convinced that it wouldn't matter how well I argue my points. You're certain of your worldview, so anything that contradicts it is automatically false.

To all of the above, I have come to the most well thought-out and rational response I could come up: “Well, duh!”

What Anon doesn’t realize is that every single phrase can be turned around and pointed directly towards him (minus the “rationalize away” part since mostly what he has done throughout the discussion is assert, not rationalize).

It should be obvious that when examining someone else’s worldview through the lens of your own worldview, anything that doesn’t agree with your worldview would automatically be assumed false! If anything, one must critique a worldview based on its own criteria, and that is what we’ve done with Anon’s atheist worldview. Upon its own beliefs and philosophy, atheism is shown to be baseless. It has to borrow from a worldview outside of it’s own in order to sustain its own beliefs. Over and over again, we’ve tried to show that to Anon by leading him to the logical dead-end conclusion of the atheist worldview, but he never answers for it. There is no “verifiable fact” to ground his worldview, yet he’ll stick to it, by golly. Blind faith indeed.


Government

Ah, yes, we’ve finally come to the very subject which started this all. He’ll grant us that we can vote how we choose, so long as we have a “real-world justification” for it and that it doesn’t “take away the rights of others.” What “real-world justification” does he have to take away my right to vote like a Christian? Who determines what is a “real-world justification” and what isn’t? Isn’t “real-world” dependent upon the worldview of the individual? Anon’s bias is blatantly obvious as to what “real-world” we ought to go by. As if “truth” could ever be known in a worldview that has unverified aspects to it. And to think he would want to use government to force that “truth” upon other religions. Sorry, but Anon’s worldview just does not sit in such a privileged seat as to judge whether or not a vote from a worldview different from his can pass muster under what he thinks is the “real-world”.

And what of Anon’s comment:

I simply want to try to convince you that forcing your religious views on me through action of government is wrong. If you want to try to convince me that Christianity is truth (or is best, even if it is not truth), fine. But don't have the government do your dirty work. Jefferson once said that he doesn't care if his neighbor has ten gods or no god, becuase it neither picks his pocket nor breaks his leg. But the government is currently picking my pocket to support Christianty (faith-based charity, vouchers, etc.) and you guys want the government to threaten me physically by making it criminal to not follow your ideology.

The nature of government is force. The real question is who is going to wield that force? Anon wants government to be neutral, but that is impossible. Behind the laws of government are ideologies and philosophies, so government has no way in being neutral. I've continuously argued that the Constitution was founded upon Christian beliefs, yet he wishes to usurp the Constitution and place it under the lens of his worldview. He wants to wield the Christian sword so that Christians can't!

And are we Christians forcing our religious views on Anon through government? In a sense, yes we are. The civil government’s job is to punish evil and reward good. So whose ethic should be highest law? Anon’s ethic, which is unaccounted for and is unaccountable to anyone except man, whose mind could change because his feelings has changed due to love, hate, sleeplessness, drugs, indigestion, or whatever? Or the Christian ethic, where God’s Law stands firm and unchanging, and to which everyone is ultimately accountable to God, regardless of whatever excuses we make for our sins?

Now, I do understand where Anon is coming from when it comes to his taxes being used in a way that he doesn’t want. In fact, I despise that our government would use tax dollars for these faith-based initiatives. Why? Because of the Eighth Commandment. Although, in Anon’s worldview, there is no Eighth Commandment, so his disgust is solely based on gut reaction. But who knows? Maybe a burger and some fries might make his gut happy and he wouldn’t be so disgusted any more. Or better yet, maybe in his view of government, there is a “real-world justification” that would suit him better to take my tax dollars and use it to promote something contrary to my “pure religious beliefs”.

The government, as it is now, is not a Christian government. Anon may think that it is or that the efforts of Christians is trying to make it so. I differ from Anon, and perhaps even with other Christians who are reading this blog. Why? Because if it is true that most Christians are antinomian, then most Christian voters are likely voting for the wrong things in our government (incrementalism my gluteus…it isn’t incremental if you have to give up gains in other areas). Yeah, that is one helluva mess that I don’t even want to get into at this point.


Christianity

Christian theism can account for ethics because they are based on the character of God, who is holy, just and good. Ethics is found in Him and founded by Him and given to us as a means of government: civil, ecclesiastical, employment, familial and, ultimately, self. To stray from His Laws is to put oneself in jeopardy of consequences, whether it is due punishment or the corrupting effects of the sin itself.

But let us make no mistake. Following God’s Law is by no means a way to justify oneself to Him. Governance over oneself is good, but every failure to follow it requires a due penalty. Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is death, but that is more than just the passing of our mortal bodies.

Anon says that we are mortal, but Scripture tells us that we are immortal. Yes, our bodies will surely die, but after that, we face Judgement. Eternal joy and fellowship with Him, or eternal punishment from Him. Anon may think our faith is only there to ease our fear of death, but that is far from the truth. We may fight death, but we do not fear it. It has lost its sting when Christ took upon Himself the wrath and condemnation that I and every other true believer in Christ deserved. Anon may find confidence in his worldview that he doesn’t have to fear death since it is the only life he has, but he is only deceiving himself.


To Anon:

Despite my Ehud-like analysis to your overall discussion (intentionally done to show the foolishness of your arguments), I do, in sincerity, hope that you will re-examine the points that we have been trying to get across to you. Do not dodge them as you have continuously done so. You would only do yourself a disservice. If you are so strongly for evidence, then look at the lack of evidence in the foundations of your atheism.

And then look at the evidence of the Christian worldview and how it solidly describes and fits reality. It is not a subjective view of reality, but an objective one. Reality is not defined by the individual, but that it is God who defines it. Firmly plant your feet on the Word of God and you will find it be solid.

Finally, know this: You have a greater inherent value then what your worldview could ever give you. You are a bearer of God’s image, not a bearer of a monkey’s image or some bacterium in primordial goo. As a bearers of His image, we have been given a great responsibility to be like Him in every good way. Your grip on ethics and your use of logic proves this over and against the logical implication of your worldview. Yet, despite how you and I can hold tight to being logical and ethical, neither of us have the will nor the strength to be perfect as God is perfect. We break His Laws and we use logic to justify our sins. It is our pitiable estate in this world, but all is not lost.

Believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and your Savior, study His Word, trust in His Wisdom, and follow Him diligently all the days of your life. Only He can save you from your sins and it is a beautiful thing. He most certainly saved mine, and I was living a good life before becoming a Christian!

We don’t claim to be perfect because we are Christians, but we do proclaim that His truth has set us free. Free from God’s wrath; free from the downward spiral of our own sinful nature; and free from worldviews and philosophies that ground themselves on nothing.

Just as Pastor Paul and Ehud pray (yes, believe it or not, Ehud does pray, and with deep sincerity and a full (regenerate) heart) for you, I also pray for your life, your soul, and your search for truth. May God grant you eyes to see and ears to hear.

In Christ,

Victor

Fairness Born Out Of Nothing - Evolution's Contradiction

(I apologize in advanced if my post seems a bit disjointed. Working graveyard does that, you know?)

In response to an article I posted from my pastor, an atheist (Anonymous) joined us to discuss his objection to pure “religious opinions” making policies and laws in government. Needless to say, Ehud and I met Anon’s challenges on a variety of subjects that stemmed from his objection. If you have not read the discussion, you can find it here.

There was a challenge put forth by Anon that was left unanswered. It was not because we didn’t have an answer or that it was unimportant, but because we felt the other issues were core to his objections. Here is my response to his unanswered challenge:

In his response to my question, “what makes ‘good’ good and bad ‘bad’?”, Anon replies:

Evolution favors the groups that reproduce the most, so from that perspective "good" is what causes an increase (or prevents a decrease) in population. When members of a social group worked together for a common good, their group was able to out-populate other groups.

Ok, let’s presuppose this thought. Keep this in mind as you read his challenge:

It's obvious we're not going to get anywhere on the "what the Founders wanted" debate. So let's talk about what's right. You are advocating an unfair system of government that favors one group over others. I would still like answers to the following questions:

- If followers of the Christian Science religion were to become the majority, do you think that they should be able to outlaw medicine?

- If Muslims were to become the majority, do you think that that should be able to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity? Or to make all women cover their faces?

- If atheists were to become the majority, do you think that they should be able to outlaw religion?

Anon believes he is advocating a fair system of government, yet fails to see that his own atheistic, evolution-based worldview undermines what he thinks is right. For each of the scenarios, the majority figures must have been doing “good” since they “out-populate other groups.” Evolution has favored them! And here, Anon, the evolutionist, wants to take away that favor by having a fair government. Anon cannot have it both ways. He cannot advocate evolution, then seek to destroy it (or to put it mildly, prevent increase) by having a fair system of government.

Of course, what is the escape for Anon here? That we’ve evolved enough so that we do not cause grief towards the minority? Nope, there isn’t an escape there either. How can morality and ethics evolve from a system that had none of it in the first place? When Beast A killed and ate Beast B, how could it just suddenly develop remorse for its actions? How could it know it was remorse it felt? As an empiricist, Anon needs to prove this in order to justify his position, otherwise, he has no genesis of ethics within his worldview. If we really want to get to the root problem with his worldview, Anon needs to prove that intelligence can develop from non-intelligence (victims of public school curriculum does not count as proof). Until then, Anon cannot account for the ethics in his belief system. Anon accused Christians of having a blind faith, yet his is truly the classic case of having such a faith. (And he says he’s not religious? :-) )

Moving on…

Anon wants a fair system of government based on the “rule of law”, but his own definition of evolution, as we saw above, just won’t let him have it. Evolution has no “rule of law”, but Scripture teaches it, and within it implies religious tolerance and minority rights (not entitlements!):

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Leviticus 19:15

He who makes the rules, wins. Atheism cannot account for the “rule of law”, but Christianity can. Christianity wins! Is it a wonder why atheists like Anon don’t like the idea that the Constitution was born out of Christian beliefs? To acknowledge it and to live under it is to “impose” Christianity upon them. Rather than having that, they are bully on having a system of fair government where there is a “wall of separation between church and state”.

But seeing how his empiricism is core to his worldview, and is paramount in determining what can be allowed in government, he is, in fact, advocating an unfair system of government. All other religious opinion must bow down to his religious opinion in the arena of law-making. Well, that’s evolution for you, eh? The moment all non-atheists give up their highest standard and adopt the atheist’s standard of empiricism, then non-atheists have functionally become atheists, thus increasing the population of atheists. How fair is that to utilize a fair system of government in order to tip the scales to favor the religious atheist worldview?

And how fair would a practically atheist government be towards the religious? Ehud has already pointed out the logical implications of such a worldview. Anon can contend that such a case would not happen here in America because we have the Constitution to protects the rights of the minority against the majority, but even he acknowledges that lines are being crossed. Without a set standard for ethics that transcends time and people (aka God's Law), the deterioration of the atheist government would be rapid. Those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it. And you can forget religious tolerance and minority rights.

So now, where are we in all this? Anon cannot account for his ethics, but the Christian can. Because of the Christian ethic, as far as humanly possible, a fair system of government was formed (the anti-Federalists would point out the flaws, but since we presuppose the sinfulness of man, it goes without saying that any human government will have its flaws). With the historical witness of the past 230 years in America, Christian ethics has produced the most prosperous country the world has ever seen. For Anon to advocate government by empiricism, he is advocating an unfair system of government. Any usurpation by any other worldview that is antithetical to the Christian worldview would, in fact, by historical witness, deteriorate rapidly due to the lack of a transcendent moral standard. We are witnessing the fruits of this today.

To Anon:

It is not hard to see the failures in your worldview. By presupposing your worldview, it cannot hold itself together when consistently applied. By assuming your system, Ehud, myself, and other Christians, understood your worldview and found it wanting. To hold to such a belief is to truly hold to a blind faith. To promote such a belief is to bring erosion to our way of government and to America at large.

But we do not wish for you, nor others to hold on to such a blind faith. The Christian faith is a faith of reason, when properly understood. We admit that there are horrid caricatures of what it means to be a Christian, but that does not mean Christendom is void of real character. Seriously, if you want to understand where we are coming from, then I would implore you to believe first so that you may understand. Believe in God and believe that He sent His Son, Jesus, to die for the sins of His people, and that He rose from the dead. Believe that by believing in Him as your Lord and your Savior, you are saved from your sins and saved from the wrath of God that we all deserve. Believe that He will send His Holy Spirit to you so that He would help you in your unbelief. And believe that He has given us His Word found in the Bible, so that we may understand Him, His world, and our place in it. (wink to Agozino)

May God grant you faith and repentance through all this.

In Christ,

Victor