What the Bible says about light and seed

The True Light "In him, (the Lord Jesus) was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world,…the world didn’t recognize him." John 1:4,9.

The Good Seed and the Weeds “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seeds in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. Matthew 13:24,25.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

2016 09 25 John Haller's Prophecy Update "Geopolitical Delusions"

Stairway To Heaven - Pete Garcia

Republished from omegaletter.com
Witnessing Tools
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Pete Garcia 

''I find no fault in Him.''...You can find fault in anyone else, but you can find no fault in Jesus.  Holy, harmless, undefiled, sinless: there He is!  Christ is God's way to man; Christ is man's way to God.  Christ is the true Jacob's ladder.  By Him the penitent sinner, the believing soul, the redeemed child of God may come unto the Father and enter into the house of many mansions."~George W. Truett

Since the beginning of time, mankind has been promised everything under the sun, to include god-hood, if they could only meet God halfway in the salvation process.  Cain sought it in his vegetable offering.  The Israelites sought it in adhering to the law, while the pagan world sought it in worshiping everything from pieces of wood, to the constellations in the heavens.

Everything has been tried and found lacking outside of the Bible's prescribed method of saving mans immortal soul.  There is only one bridge which gaps heaven and earth, and that man is Jesus Christ.
Since the Garden of Eden, those who worshipped Jehovah looked forward to the day a Messiah would come:  Eve was promised this, Abel understood it, Enoch preached it, Noah experienced a type of it, Job knew it, and here, Jacob dreamed of it.
"At sundown he arrived at a good place to set up camp and stopped there for the night. Jacob found a stone to rest his head against and lay down to sleep.  As he slept, he dreamed of a stairway that reached from the earth up to heaven. And he saw the angels of God going up and down the stairway.  At the top of the stairway stood the LORD, and he said, “I am the LORD, the God of your grandfather Abraham, and the God of your father, Isaac. The ground you are lying on belongs to you. I am giving it to you and your descendants."  Genesis 28:11-13 (NLT)
They looked forward to the day a Messiah would come, today we look back.  The fulcrum of history pivots entirely on what Christ did on the cross.  He, the only perfect man, died a brutal death He did not deserve as a sacrifice for the rest of humanity.  His death was payment in full, once for all time, on behalf of mankind who had no way of achieving it for ourselves.

Religion and Philosophy
And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” Genesis 11:4
The best man could do was at the Tower of Babel.  Babel not only put on display the arrogance and pridefulness of mankind, but laid the foundation for mans future attempt at saving himself.

The world is full of religions and philosophies that promise paradise, for only a little obedience.  They say, if you do this or that, you may gain entrance.  Join our group they say, for only we are enlightened and know the 'real' truth.  If you join, you soon find yourselves busy, trying to follow their rules and  regulations.  You might feel good about yourself at first, thinking your doing your part for the higher good, but when all your best efforts fail to remove that emptiness, it will consume you.  Their enlightenment, does nothing to lift the burden of sin that you must still carry around.  You will find as much meaning in a works-based salvation as does a hamster find freedom on an exercise wheel. 

This world, outside of Jesus Christ, at best can only offer what creature-comforts fortune and fame in this life.  It has no authority or power in the next, so through the use of rather effective propaganda, it has made the central slogan in humanity to date, 'get what you can, while you can'.

This propaganda comes wrapped in many different packages: patriotism, wealth, piety, fame, and renown to name a few.  If for nothing else, you want to feel as if you've led a life of accomplishment, with a tombstone that bears: 'here lies ____, a man/woman of vision'.  You may want to be remembered as having died a hero, or having left behind something that benefits mankind.  Maybe your name was made in academia, having achieved a level of elevation that your thoughts and opinions somehow carry greater weight than the average man.  Whatever pursuit you have sought out for yourself in this life, without Jesus Christ as your foundation, what good does it do you?
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" Mark 8:36
Jesus Christ
Christianity on the other hand, is God reaching down to mankind and bridging the gap between Heaven and Earth through Jesus Christ
Christianity says that mankind could never be good enough to do it for themselves, because it is impossible.  We miss a vital ingredient in meeting God's perfect standard of righteousness.  The law was given so that mankind could realize the extent of his/her sinfulness.  A good example of the purpose of God's law would be the bathroom mirror, soap, and water.  The bathroom mirror, like the law, was meant to show man how sinful and decrepit he really was.  If you had no mirror, you would have no way of knowing how dirty you really were.  Yet, the mirror has no ability in and of itself to clean you, it can only expose the filthiness.  The blood of Jesus Christ then is like the soap and water, applied once, forever makes you acceptable in the sight of God.

The law, good works, personal righteousness, and morality are good things, but they can't bridge the gap between God and man, because a man by nature is sinful, and God perfect.  There needed to be something (or someone) who could close the space, being both.  Jesus was fully human, and also fully God.  He could not be an acceptable sacrifice on behalf of mankind if He were any less, or any more than He was.  That is why belief in the Virgin birth, sinless life, and resurrection are vital to believing in who Jesus was.
If you take any of those away from who you believe He was, than He would not be sufficient.  He would be 'another' Jesus incapable of saving your soul.

The Mormon's, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, and any other group who replaces the Jesus of the Bible with another Jesus, might be morally holy, pious, and admirable people, but still fall short of God's standard of perfection, therefore, doomed like the most heinous of the wicked to spend an eternity separated from God.

It might seem completely unfair to man, who has been taught so long that he must earn his keep, that he has no real ability to affect his or her own salvation.  It is unfair.  God did all the work.  All we can do, is what Christ said we could do to be saved...that is to believe in who He is and accept that sacrifice in our stead.

Although we don't fully comprehend God's plan for mankind, we know He desires to spend eternity with those, who by freewill, choose to know and love Him.  God knows who will come to Him, and yet, has left the door open to all which to my tiny, feeble mind, still seems incomprehensible.

Why would God, who spoke the universe into existence, be mindful of me?  I know, that someday, this will make sense.  For now, I am just grateful that I do know Him as Lord and Savior.  But I'll leave you with this excellent example from Dr. Harry Ironside,  that maybe puts this into a little bit of perspective.
“This illustration is of the sinner coming to the door of salvation (John 10:9). Above the door was a sign which says, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Revelation 22:17). The sinner responds to this gracious invitation, trusts Christ and he is gloriously saved. He now turns around and looks at the door through which he had just entered. He sees above the door another sign which says, "Chosen...in Him before the foundation of the world" (Ephesian 1:4). Both are true. Both are taught in the Bible. Both must be believed.”

Sunday, September 18, 2016

2016 09 18 John Haller's Prophecy Update - "While You Were Sleeping"

Twilight of American Jewry

Republished from jpost.com

This week marked the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America. Most of us didn’t realize it at the time, but those attacks also marked the beginning of the end of the golden age of American Jewry – on both sides of the ideological divide.

Most American Jews make their home on the political Left, and together with black Americans they comprise the most loyal Democratic voting bloc. American Jews have clung to the Democratic Party despite the fact that over the past decade and a half, their position in the party has become increasingly precarious.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.
After the September 11 attacks, the American anti-war movement rose as a force in the party. The movement was quick to conflate its anti-Americanism with hostility for Israel. Jewish anti-war activists were forced to choose between Zionism and pacifism.

And the situation has only grown worse over time.

As Gary Gambill of the Middle East Forum wrote this week in The National Interest, since the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel was founded in 2005, its members have gone from one leftist group to another and demanded that their members embrace the cause of Israel’s destruction.

Group after group – from the feminists, to the gay rights activists, to Occupy Wall Street, to Black Lives Matter – bowed to the BDS demand. Members who refused to condemn Israel and join the call for its destruction have been booted out.

As Prof. Alan Dershowitz wrote last month, this state of affairs has brought about a situation where progressive American Jews who support Israel – that is, the majority of American Jews – are increasingly finding themselves isolated, rejected by their fellow leftists.

In his words, “Over the past several years, progressive Jews and supporters of Israel have had to come to terms with the reality that those who do not reject Israel and accept the... BDS movement’s unique brand of bigotry are no longer welcome in some progressive circles. And while both the Democratic and Republican parties have embraced the importance of the US alliance with Israel, that dynamic is under threat more so than at any point in my lifetime.”

The radicalization of the American Left has caused a radicalization of the Democratic Party. This was made clear throughout this year’s Democratic primary season and during the party’s national convention. Today, the anti-Israel Left makes up not just the Democratic grassroots but also the major donors to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The significance of this development for American Jews cannot be overstated. Even if Clinton herself doesn’t share the positions of the Bernie Sanders wing of her party, she cannot govern in defiance of its will.

And if she is elected in November, she won’t.

On the Republican side of the aisle, the situation is very different.

But it is also bad.

It isn’t that anti-Semites have taken over the party of Lincoln. To be sure, white supremacists like David Duke have made clear that they are happy to support Donald Trump. But unlike Clinton and the progressives, Trump never sought nor accepted their support. Moreover, in sharp contrast to the situation on the Democrat side of the aisle, Republican support for Israel is all but unanimous.

All of the Republican primary candidates were pro-Israel to varying degrees. The GOP platform passed at the convention is the most pro-Israel document in its history.

The problem on the Republican side of the aisle then is not that the party has turned against the Jews. The problem is that a large contingent of prominent Jewish Republicans has decided to commit political suicide.

Back in the mid-1970s, disgusted by the radicalization of the Democratic Party, particularly in connection with its prosecution of the Cold War, a significant group of predominantly Jewish intellectuals led by the likes of Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz came to the conclusion that they could no longer maintain their loyalty to the Democratic Party – which had been their political home for decades. With the rise of Ronald Reagan on the Republican side of the aisle, these prominent Jews broke with the Democrats, called themselves neoconservatives, and cast their lot with the GOP.

Some members of this group received influential appointments in the Reagan administration. Others used their intellectual skills and their media outlets to set out the intellectual basis for much of Reagan’s foreign and economic policies.

These Jewish Republicans enjoyed a far less congenial relationship with Reagan’s successor George H.W. Bush. But all the same, by and large they remained loyal Republicans. For their efforts they were appointed to significant positions in the George W. Bush administration.

After the September 11 attacks, prominent Jewish Republicans like Bush’s deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz rose to national fame as they were widely credited – and often credited themselves – with shaping Bush’s counter-terrorism policies, including his decision to overthrow the Iraqi government and to make democratizing the Islamic world the goal of his counter-terrorism strategies worldwide.

Their star rose as quickly as it fell. As the public soured on Bush’s war policies, the first to be blamed for his failures were the Jewish Republicans who had been so outspoken about their roles in shaping his policies.

Some of the criticism was substantive and deserved. Much of it was bigoted.

The Republican establishment, for its part, remained staunchly loyal to Bush’s policies. Both John McCain and Mitt Romney supported them to varying degrees during their presidential bids.

That support was not shared by Republican voters, however. Over Obama’s eight years in office, the Republican base and as well as lawmakers became increasing hostile to the democratic interventionism championed by the Bush administration and disaffected with the war in Iraq.

Seemingly unaware of the shift, the same Jewish Republican policy-makers and writers most identified in the public mind with Bush’s failures went into the 2016 race assuming that as was the case in 2008 and 2012, the party would choose a candidate that largely supported their views.

Two prominent Republican candidates, Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Jeb Bush, met that expectation.

But contrary to their expectations, Rubio and Bush were flops. The voters rejected them. The two candidates that secured significant support – Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, were outspoken opponents of Bush’s policies.

Rather than repeat their practice from 1992 and accept the will of their fellow Republicans, this year the most prominent members of the Jewish Republican elite have opted to attack Trump and his voters.

That is, they have decided to commit political suicide.

Wolfowitz, along with Bush’s second term Treasury secretary Hank Paulson and several prominent lower level Jewish Republican policy-makers, announced they are voting for Clinton. Most members of the Jewish Republican elite have sufficed with refusing to endorse Trump. Some have become his most outspoken and vituperative critics.

Objectively, their behavior is irrational. With the radical takeover of the Democratic Party, these Republican rebels cannot hope to receive influential roles in a Clinton administration even if she throws some table scraps in their direction. And by attacking Trump and his voters, they are dooming themselves to political homelessness for at least a generation.

The prominence of Jewish Republicans in the Never Trump camp is liable to impact more than their personal career prospects. It is liable to adversely affect Republican attitudes toward Jews as Jews. And to their disgrace, the Jewish Republicans at the heart of the Never Trump camp are playing right into this unhealthy dynamic.

This week the Intelligence Squared debating society held a public debate in New York. The debate was posted on Real Clear Politics website.

Two sides debated the proposition that the American elites are to blame for Trump’s rise. Arguing in favor of the proposition were two Christian journalists – Tim Carney and Ben Domenech.

Arguing against it were two Jewish journalists – Bret Stephens (a former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief) and Jennifer Rubin.

Both Rubin and Stephens voiced their support for Clinton’s controversial assertion that half of Trump’s supporters are deplorable, unworthy of attention, un-American and irredeemable.

For their part, Domenech and Carney argued that Stephens and Rubin were ignoring the social and economic dislocation of the lower middle class. They argued that the suffering of members of this group has caused millions of Americans to feel betrayed by their political elites and turn to Trump to put a stop to a political game they believe is rigged against them.

Two-thirds of the way through the event, Carney brought up religion.

Carney allowed that many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bigoted. However, he said that “as a Christian,” he couldn’t accept that they are irredeemable because Christianity teaches that all men can be saved.

Rather than grant his point or simply ignore it, Rubin chose to respond in the name of Judaism. In so doing, she turned the debate into a contest between Christianity and Judaism.

Incorrectly arguing that Judaism does not believe in repentance as a road to redemption, Rubin pointed to herself and Stephens and said sardonically, “We Jews just believe in good and evil. We don’t believe that everyone is redeemable.”

The Christians won the debate in a knockout.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the Jewish Republicans’ behavior is that while attacking the anti-Semites at the margins of the Republican Party, they ignore the anti-Semites at the heart of the Democratic Party.

While Trump has disavowed the support of the GOP’s Jew-hating wing, some of Clinton’s closest advisers harbor virulent anti-Semitic beliefs.

Take Sidney Blumenthal for instance. Blumenthal has been a close adviser to the Clintons for decades. We learned from Clinton’s emails made public earlier this year by Judicial Watch that Blumenthal was one of Clinton’s most intimate advisers throughout her tenure as secretary of state.

Blumenthal’s son Max is a raving anti-Semite. He calls for the destruction of Israel. He compares Israel to Nazi Germany and IDF soldiers to the Nazi SS.

Blumenthal Sr. is a proud father. He regularly shared his son’s ravings with Clinton, and she shared his delight. In eight separate emails over the course of her tenure in office, Clinton enthusiastically praised his Jew-hating propaganda.

In one message email, Clinton wrote, “Your Max is a mitzva.”

On the one hand then, we have the Jewish Democrats who are faced with a party that is increasingly controlled by anti-Semitic forces. And on the other hand we are in the midst of the collective political suicide of the Jewish Republican establishment.

It is hard to know how Israel will be affected by the dramatic enfeeblement of the American Jewish community that we are now witnessing. The fact remains that the vast majority of American support for Israel comes from the evangelical Christian community.

What is clear enough though is that the political waning of the Jewish community across the political spectrum means that the golden era of American Jewry is not only over. It is gone.


Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Apologetics at the Speed of Light

Republished from omegaletter.com
In Defense of the Faith
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Wendy Wippel 

You know in comic strips when the little light bulb appears on top of a character’s head?  Meaning they just had a Eureka moment?  I had mine this morning. And as someone for whom apologetics is like crack, all I can say is that I should have caught this earlier. Because it changes everything.

We all know that God made the world (and everything and everybody in it) in six days and called it good.
No problem there. 
And we all sat through the laws of thermodynamics in grade school:
First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
Second law of thermodynamics – Entropy (meaning disorder) increases over time.
Third law of thermodynamics – As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.

The God  who created energy in the beginning is outside this closed system we live in, so rule #1 stands. We’re stuck with the total energy the universe has now, but it can be changed into another form.

Rule #3 is a hypothetical situation, as we cannot achieve absolute zero even in laboratory conditions, so lets ignore that.  

Which leaves the Rule behind door #2. Entropy (disorder, chaos) always increases.  The universe we live in is slowly but steadily wearing out.

Homer Simson once observed that “In this house, we obey the second law of thermodynamics”.  Yep, in my house too.  Left alone, things wear out. Decay. Because in this universe we obey the second law of thermodynamics. 
No choice.

The implication there; my "Eureka!" moment this morning. If God made everything and said it was good, what happened? Why is entropy increasing?

The Fall. And since the laws of thermodynamics were deduced by scientists Clasius and Kelvin about 1850 (which was obviously after the fall), their rules describe the fallen world, not the one God originally gave us.
Dunno why that took so long for that synapse to fire.

Romans 8:20 kind of says that:
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption. Romans 8:20-21

Decay is the product of the fall, not part of God’s original design, and that explains all the changes in creation since the God said it was good.    
Which include, apparently includes the speed of light.
We were all taught in grade school that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. To put it mildly, is pretty dang fast.

For perspective, 186,000 miles per second means that light moves at about a foot per nanosecond.  And a nanosecond, for those of you who might not sit around reading astrophysics journals for fun, is a billionth of a second. 

We have trouble wrapping our minds around these kind of numbers. Computer Scientist and Rear Admiral of the Navy Grace Hopper thought up this way to explain to her bosses why even at the speed of light, messages to space took a while. She  acquired, as a visual aid, a piece of wire that represented how far light could travel in a nanosecond. (Just under one foot.)

Then she acquired a length of wire that represented how far light could travel in a microsecond. 984 feet. So how far could light travel in a second? 
She didn’t have to do that experiment, we all learned it. 186,000 miles. But that would be one giant piece of wire. It would wrap around the earth about nine times.
That’s how fast light is.

Early Greek experiments seemed to show, in fact, that the speed of light was infinite.  A Danish Astronomist, Olaf Roemer, reported his findings to the Paris Academe Des Sciences in 1676, reporting that the unexpected eclipse cycles of a moon of Jupiter named, Io, would make sense if the speed of light was infinite, apparently confirming the conclusions of the Greek experiments. The first first official scientific paper (shortly after scientific papers were invented) was published in 1729 by James Bradley, whose work also seemed to confirm that the speed of light was infinite.

Scientists, primarily in England, however, continued to try to measure the speed of light, and a funny thing happened. When someone looked at all the results over the centuries, the speeds measured went steadily down. Just fractions of seconds at a time, but consistently slower.  All told, the speed of light had been measured about 300 times. And, over time, the measured speeds consistently dropped.

The skeptics say that over that many centuries, with multiple investigators and multiple methods, those results don’t really hold much weight.  But sometimes one person, using the same instruments, measured the speed of light more than once. And still saw a consistent drop in speed at later time points.

Tiny, tiny, drops. But consistent enough that by the 1920's some scientists started to think about how to really prove whether or not the speed of light was constant. An idea that was pondered by mainstream physicists for several decades with results that led Ramond Bilge, Chairman of the Berkley physics Department, to recommend several small decreases in the official speed of light through the 20s and 30s. 

Bilge, however, had a strange change of mind in 1940, when he published a curious scientific paper Entitled The General physical Constants as of August 1940 with Details on the Velocity of Light Only. 
This is what he said:
"This paper is being written on request… at this time, on request,……A belief in any significant variability in the constants of nature is fatal to the spirit of science, as science is now understood."

Somebody, somebody unknown, apparently feared that questioning the constants would throw physics into intellectual turmoil.  So…essentially, a referendum was issued.
The constancy of constants must  not be questioned.

And as every research scientist knows (hey, I was one of them) if you want to fund your research, you tow the party line. Bottom line? Research on the speed of light stopped.
Which is why we were all taught that the speed of light was a constant-- that light was that speed at the beginning. And we were taught that it is still that speed, and that it will always be that speed. In fact, the speed of light, notated for short as “ C “ is considered the King of constants, one that a lot of other constants are based on.  

Which is why all of us, many years after grade school, can confidently tell anyone who may ask that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. Still.

The speed of light has always been the one thing we could count on never changing.
Brace yourself. It would seem that we’ve been just a little misled.
It all started with a guy named Barry Setterfield, an Australian astronomer who was given a book of anomalies in astronomy. And in that book it mentioned the ambiguity that still existed regarding the speed of light.
Barry was stupefied that there was any uncertainty (Australian schools apparently being just like ours), and intrigued, and spent some thereafter reading up on everything that had been put in print about scientific efforts to nail the speed of light down.  And then he started writing up what he had learned.

His fellow scientists weren’t impressed. Mostly because Barry was a Christian, and much of his work up till then was carried by Creationist ministries.
Then he recruited Trevor Norman, also an Australian physicist, and wrote up a scientific paper relating his evidence that it did seem, to show, in fact, that the speed of light was slowing.

And the article was published. That is, until was rescinded by the two Universities who had promoted it after being informed that both authors were (Horrors !!), creationists.
(And that meant, of course, despite their IQs and his education and accomplishments up to the minute they got interested in this didn’t matter.  They were a creationists, meaning idiots by definition.
Of course. 

A second paper providing more detailed evidence was just unanimously rejected.
And that was the end of that. Setterfield and Norman to this day speak at conferences and answer questions put to them from scientists and the general population about their evidence, but they’ve been ridiculed in the scientific community.
And maybe worse, ignored. But the evidence that the speed of light may, in fact, not have been constant since the first photon was formed has continued to accumulate, and other scientists are now theorizing what Setterfield had proposed way before. That the speed of light may not, actually be eternally constant.

Particularly Joao Magueijo, a Portugese Theoretical physicist, at imperial London College. He has become a superstar off of his theory, Variable speed of light theory, with multiple books on the market and a papers published regarding the inconstancy of the speed of light.
The work of Magueijo, and his colleague, Dr. Andereas Albrecht at Cal-Davis, seems to provide answers for issues heretofore unresolved, for example, why the still expanding universe is essentially all the same temperature. (Answer: because the universe, kind of led by the speed of light, expanded so fast at the beginning that all of the universe that we can measure essentially came into existence at the same time. So it has all cooled to the same temperature.)

In fact, according to the calculations of Andreas and Magueijo, at the beginning of the expansion of the universe light was traveling at no less than 1860000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 miles per second.

Which would mean that when Solomon reigned over Israel, light was twice as fast as it is now. And that it was four times as fast when Abraham was in the wilderness.
An interesting piece of Bible trivia, but not something the physicists would really care about. But they do have a reason to care about whether or not these theories about light being much faster at the beginning of creation are actually true. A big one. And’s it’s called  Atomic time. There are two ways that time has been officially measured in our liftetimes: the the current (since 1967) is Atomic time, which uses as the basic unit the speed at which a cesium electron completes one orbit of the atomic nucleus. It is based on electromagnet data.

The former method, used before 1967, was called dynamic time, and was based on  units obtained by dividing the period of time that it takes the earth to make one complete orbit around the sun. This method uses gravitational data.

The atomic clock is more accurate, but only by like a billionth of a second.
The funny thing is that scientists now know that these two types of measurements give very different values for the age of the universe.
Why would that be?
The Atomic method’s calculations are tied to the speed of light. The higher the speed of light used in the calculations, the longer the time frame determined. 
The smaller the speed of light used, the shorter the time span.

Remember that estimated speed at the beginning? 186,000 with 70 zeros/second?  If the new theories are correct, the speed of light has dropped tremendously since the beginning.
And new calculations need to be made. And when they make them, the scientists will be horrified.

Not enough time for evolution.  In fact, the data seems to say that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

Anyone here surprised? 
I'm going to have to paraphrase Sir Francis  Bacon one more time, “a lot of science always brings you back" to God.

I just can’t help myself. Every time.
About Wendy Wippel
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...