God Knows…

Whats in a name

What’s in a name? What can we learn about ourselves based on the name our parents gave us upon birth? Were we given a name that we now loath and despise or have we internalized the meaning of our name with great joy and anticipation?

Honestly, I feel sorry for those individuals who were given a bizarre name, even by our “anything goes” cultural norms in Canada. There have been times, upon being introduced to someone, that I did not know whether to laugh or cry.

Yes, the names that are bestowed upon us at birth can produce deep pain in our lives later on.

A young associate of mine in seminary, from the continent of Africa, was named “Godknows” upon his birth. At first I was shocked at his name, and gently inquired as to how he ever ended up with a name like that. His answer was deeply moving to me. Godknows mother, as far as I can recall*, named him on the basis of Jeremiah 1:5:

I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.

As a woman of great faith, she had internalized the words of Jeremiah the Weeping Prophet for her own son. She desired and hoped that, one day, her African-born son would grow up to be a great man of God, a prophet to the nations. God would indeed know her son by his name.

Fast forward some thirty years, and I was standing before a young man, a great man of God, miraculously transplanted from relative poverty on the African continent, to studying and preparing in a well-known conservative college and seminary, one with a rich history in North America.

I am honoured to have met Godknows.

*25+ years is a long time to remember the exact details, nonetheless, the gist of the story remains true.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


Christ & Culture: A Way Forward

P1130227 (1)
Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church in Lebret, Saskatchewan. f/11 @ 1/500 second.

It is my understanding that our witness to Christ and His influence comes precisely from NOT coercing and enforcing as the world does (regardless of the end behaviour we seek to bring about) but by demonstrating genuine love and vulnerability to all.

We are not at liberty to be repulsed by contemporary culture. Instead we are to engage with and transform culture – to love and serve all people by seeing everyone as God actually sees them – created in His moral image.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Present-day culture weakens our sensitivity to sin

John Paul II in Papua, Indonesia in January,1995.
Pope John Paul II in Papua, Indonesia, in January 1995 Francois LOCHON/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

A glance at certain aspects of contemporary culture can help us to understand the progressive weakening of the sense of sin, precisely because of the crisis of conscience and crisis of the sense of God already mentioned.

“Secularism” is by nature and definition a movement of ideas and behavior which advocates a humanism totally without God, completely centered upon the cult of action and production and caught up in the heady enthusiasm of consumerism and pleasure seeking, unconcerned with the danger of “losing one’s soul.” This secularism cannot but undermine the sense of sin. At the very most, sin will be reduced to what offends man. But it is precisely here that we are faced with the bitter experience which I already alluded to in my first encyclical namely, that man can build a world without God, but this world will end by turning against him.”101 In fact, God is the origin and the supreme end of man, and man carries in himself a divine seed.102 Hence it is the reality of God that reveals and illustrates the mystery of man. It is therefore vain to hope that there will take root a sense of sin against man and against human values, if there is no sense of offense against God, namely the true sense of sin.

Another reason for the disappearance of the sense of sin in contemporary society is to be found in the errors made in evaluating certain findings of the human sciences. Thus on the basis of certain affirmations of psychology, concern to avoid creating feelings of guilt or to place limits on freedom leads to a refusal ever to admit any shortcoming. Through an undue extrapolation of the criteria of the science of sociology, it finally happens—as I have already said—that all failings are blamed upon society, and the individual is declared innocent of them. Again, a certain cultural anthropology so emphasizes the undeniable environmental and historical conditioning and influences which act upon man, that it reduces his responsibility to the point of not acknowledging his ability to perform truly human acts and therefore his ability to sin.

The sense of sin also easily declines as a result of a system of ethics deriving from a certain historical relativism. This may take the form of an ethical system which relativizes the moral norm, denying its absolute and unconditional value, and as a consequence denying that there can be intrinsically illicit acts independent of the circumstances in which they are performed by the subject. Herein lies a real “overthrowing and downfall of moral values,” and “the problem is not so much one of ignorance of Christian ethics,” but ignorance “rather of the meaning, foundations and criteria of the moral attitude.”103 Another effect of this ethical turning upside down is always such an attenuation of the notion of sin as almost to reach the point of saying that sin does exist, but no one knows who commits it.

Finally the sense of sin disappears when—as can happen in the education of youth, in the mass media and even in education within the family—it is wrongly identified with a morbid feeling of guilt or with the mere transgression of legal norms and precepts.

101 Cf Pope John Paul II, encyclical Redemptor Hominis, 15: Acta Apostolicæ Sedis 71 (1979), 286-289.
102 Cf Gaudium et Spes, 3; cf 1 Jn 3:9.
103 Pope John Paul II, Address to the Bishops of the Eastern Region of France (April 1, 1982), 2: Insegnamenti V, 1 (1982), 1081.

— Reconciliatio et Pænitentia 18

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Secular Humanism is a Religion: An Open Letter to an Atheist

Thank you for providing a link on FaceBook to the article in question. In my view, there is a fundamental flaw in the entire article. Secular humanism is a religion in itself. Even the author of the article alludes to that possibility and then conveniently attempts to dismiss the evidence away.

“Now there is a common riposte to this: that neutrality is impossible, that a secular state in fact imposes liberal, secular values on everyone.”

In order to address this issue that secular humanism is NOT neutral and is in fact a religion in itself, I will draw from numerous publicly available articles and the legal opinions of others. Furthermore, I will attempt to briefly address the issue(s) of separation of Church and State, in both Canada and the US. This entire avenue of research and analysis is considered quite complex, especially as it pertains to the US. By comparison, the situation in Canada, under our present Constitution is pretty straight forward.

Contrary to misinformed public opinion in Canada, separation of Church and State does NOT exist.

“Some time ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper observed that separation of church and state is an American constitutional concept and does not apply to the Canadian constitution. He went on to say that separation of church and state in Canada has meant, traditionally, that the government will not interfere with religion. The sad thing is that he is right.

There are no clauses in the Constitution Act of 1867 (the BNA Act to those born before 1982) that separate church and state. Indeed, our Head of State, the Monarchy, is also the Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.

Since that Monarchy is directly involved with the Church of England and, by extension, the Anglican Church of Canada, the best the Crown can do is to tolerate all other churches (and atheism) in Canada.”


In the US, things are much more complex. It may be difficult to work through all of this, especially if one is not a lawyer or judge who understands the US Constitution and subsequent US Supreme Court Decisions. 🙂

Is Secular Humanism a Religion?

John Dewey described Humanism as our “common faith.” Julian Huxley called it “Religion without Revelation.” The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In fact, claiming that Humanism was “the new religion” was trendy for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In the 1950’s, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue. But then Christians began to challenge the “establishment of religion” which Secular Humanism in public schools represented. They used the same tactic Atheists had used to challenge prayer and Bible reading under the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment. Now the ACLU is involved. Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is “scientific.”

In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion. Nevertheless, many Humanists deny the significance of the Court’s assertion. In order to buttress the claim that the identification of Secular Humanism as a religion in a footnote in the Torcaso case is more than mere “dicta,” here is a memorandum prepared “at the request of the staff of the Committee on Education and Labor” by Congressman John B. Conlan.

The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath “invades appellant’s freedom of belief and religion.”
The Court declared in Torcaso* that the “no establishment” clause of the First Amendment reached far more than churches of theistic faiths, that it is not the business of government or its agents to probe beliefs, and that therefore its inquiry is concluded by the fact of the profession of belief.

Actually, the Court in Torcaso rested its decision on “free exercise” grounds, not the “Establishment Clause.” Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 264-65 (1962) J. Brennan, concurring.

The Court stated:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to “profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11

Footnote 11 concerning “religions founded on different beliefs” contains the Court’s citation of Secular Humanism as a religion. It states:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

It is important to note that this citation of Secular Humanism as a religion is not merely dictum. The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
The Ethical Culture movement is one denomination of Secular Humanism which reaches moral and cultural relativism, situation ethics, and attacks belief in a spiritual God and theistic values of the Old and New Testaments.
The Washington Ethical Society case involved denial of the Society’s application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court’s ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.
The Court Stated,

The sole issue raised is whether petitioner falls within the definition of a “church” or a “religious society” . . . . The taxing authority urges denial of the tax exemption asserting petitioner is not a religious society or church and that it does not use its buildings for religious worship since “religious” and “worship” require a belief in and teaching of a Supreme Being who controls the universe. The position of the tax Court, in denying tax exemption, was that belief in and teaching of the existence of a Divinity is essential to qualify under the statute. . . . To construe exemptions so strictly that unorthodox or minority forms of worship would be denied the exemption benefits granted to those conforming to the majority beliefs might well raise constitutional issues . . . . We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner qualifies as “a religious corporation or society” . . . .

It is incumbent upon Congress to utilize this broad definition of religion in all its legislative actions bearing on the support or non-support of religion, within the context of the “no-establishment” clause of the First Amendment.

But many who favor a secularist “separation of church and state” will contend that fundamentalists invented the idea that Humanism is a religion. Like most Americans, these secularists do not understand the legal issues involved here.

The Humanist-dominated Court is permitting Secular Humanists to have their cake and eat it too.

Secular Humanism is a religion
“for Free Exercise Clause purposes.”

The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion “for free exercise purposes.” When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them.

Tax Exemption. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion. The Torcaso quote cited the cases.

Conscientious Objection. Even though Congress originally granted conscientious objector status only to those who objected to war for religious reasons (i.e., because of a belief in God), the Supreme Court turned around and said that Humanists who don’t believe in God are “religious” for C.O. purposes. U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 183, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733, 746 (Holding that belief in a “Supreme Being” is not a necessary component of “religion,” quoting a Secular Humanist source, “Thus the ‘God’ that we love . . . is . . . humanity.”)

So Secular Humanism is emphatically and undeniably a religion — “for free exercise purposes.”

Any claim that “the clear weight of the caselaw” is against the proposition that Secular Humanism is a religion is a misleading claim. Secular Humanism is a religion (“for free exercise clause purposes”).

Secular Humanism is Not a religion
“for Establishment Clause purposes.”

But when Christians attempt to get the religion of Secular Humanism out of the government schools, based on the same emotional frame of mind which atheists had when they went to court against God in schools, then pro-secularist courts speak out of the other side of their faces and say that Secular Humanism is NOT a religion “for establishment clause purposes.” This is slimy deceitful legalism at its worst.

But it explains why so many are confused about whether Secular Humanism is a religion.

Here is the rule: When Secular Humanists want the benefits of religion, Secular Humanism is a religion. When Secular Humanists are challenged for propagating their religion in public schools, it is not a religion. If that sounds insane, it is; but all insane people are still rational. This insanity is cloaked in the rational-sounding rhetoric of constitutional law. Remember:

Secular Humanism is a religion “for free exercise clause purposes,” and it is not a religion “for establishment clause purposes.”

Here’s how it works. In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), a high school biology teacher tried to balance the teaching of evolutionism with creationism based on the claim that Secular Humanism (and its core belief, evolutionism) is a religion. The court emphatically rejected this claim:

We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are “religions” for Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of religion and the clear weight of the caselaw5 are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987) (holding unconstitutional, under Establishment Clause, Louisiana’s “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act”).

Note 5: See Smith v. Board of School Com’rs of Mobile County, 827 F.2d 684, 690-95 (11th Cir. 1987) (refusing to adopt district court’s holding that “secular humanism” is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes; deciding case on other grounds); United States v. Allen, 760 F.2d 447, 450-51 (2d Cir. 1985) (quoting Tribe, American Constitutional Law 827-28 (1978), for the proposition that, while “religion” should be broadly interpreted for Free Exercise Clause purposes, “anything `arguably non-religious’ should not be considered religious in applying the establishment clause”).

Thus a teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism, but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity. Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break, while Secular Humanists are allowed to teach the tenets of the religion of Secular Humanism from the blackboard during class.

Peloza alleges the school district ordered him to refrain from discussing his religious beliefs with students during “instructional time,” and to tell any students who attempted to initiate such conversations with him to consult their parents or clergy. He claims the school district, in the following official reprimand, defined “instructional time” as any time the students are on campus, including lunch break and the time before, between, and after classes:

You are hereby directed to refrain from any attempt to convert students to Christianity or initiating conversations about your religious beliefs during instructional time, which the District believes includes any time students are required to be on campus as well as the time students immediately arrive for the purposes of attending school for instruction, lunch time, and the time immediately prior to students’ departure after the instructional day.

Complaint at 16. Peloza seeks a declaration that this definition of instructional time is too broad, and that he should be allowed to participate in student-initiated discussions of religious matters when he is not actually teaching class.

The school district’s interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation trumps Peloza’s right to free speech.

While at the high school, whether he is in the classroom or outside of it during contract time, Peloza is not just any ordinary citizen. He is a teacher. He is one of those especially respected persons chosen to teach in the high school’s classroom. He is clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom. His expressions of opinion are all the more believable because he is a teacher. The likelihood of high school students equating his views with those of the school is substantial. To permit him to discuss his religious beliefs with students during school time on school grounds would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Such speech would not have a secular purpose, would have the primary effect of advancing religion, and would entangle the school with religion. In sum, it would flunk all three parts of the test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). See Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1056-58 (10th Cir. 1990) (teacher could be prohibited from reading Bible during silent reading period, and from stocking two books on Christianity on shelves, because these things could leave students with the impression that Christianity was officially sanctioned), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 3025, 120 L.Ed.2d 896 (1992).

Secular Humanist teachers and school administrators (who are protected by the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment as members of tax-exempt religious organizations and religious conscientious objectors) are free to propagate their views in schools, but Christians are not. If Christians propagate their views, it is an “establishment clause” violation, but not if Secular Humanists propagate their views.

Secular Humanism is a religion “for free exercise clause purposes,” and it is not a religion “for establishment clause purposes.”


The concept that secular humanism demonstrates neutrality towards all religion is false. Secular humanism by definition is a non-theistic religion that seeks to build a liberal society without even a reference to God (the very core value and belief system of atheism). Secular humanism, and its attendant atheism, in the public sphere, is demonstrably intolerant, and is fundamentally opposed to all religions, predominantly Christianity.

Man can build a world without God, but this world will end by turning against him.

Pope John Paul II on secular humanism and it’s end result.


*Other Justices have reflected back on the Torcaso opinion and confirmed our analysis.

Justice Scalia wrote:

In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961), we did indeed refer to “SECULAR HUMANISM” as a “religion.”
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) note 6

Justice Harlan summed it all up:

[Footnote 8] This Court has taken notice of the fact that recognized “religions” exist that “do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God,” Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11, e. g., “Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, SECULAR HUMANISM and others.” Ibid. See also Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127 (1957); 2 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; J. Archer, Faiths Men Live By 120-138, 254-313 (2d ed. revised by Purinton 1958); Stokes & Pfeffer, supra, n. 3, at 560.
Welsh v. United States 398 U.S. 333 (1970) note 8

All or Nothing?

The Cross

All or nothing. Go BIG or go HOME. There is something very appealing about this concept. To go all out for something demonstrates a tenacity and commitment that is enviable. It is motivating because, deep down inside of us, we all want to commit to a life that is worth living. But there is a dark side to this, and this has little to do with Star Wars.

Unfortunately, one of the possibilities in an all or nothing situation is absolutely nothing. “I want it all and right now” may work for some, but getting nothing is often the end result for many. This effect is exacerbated when it comes to personal growth.

For example, you determined in your heart to exercise and lose weight by going to the gym at least three or four times a week. Your intent and New Year’s resolution was an honourable one, but you have failed to get to your gym workouts even once, and it is already February. Your family have all been sick at home with the flu, your youngest one is just beginning to recover. You have been so busy taking care of everyone else that you have not had the time or energy to take care of yourself. You are just beginning to feel a sore throat – you fear that sooner or later that this flu will get a hold of you too. You are frustrated and angry with yourself because you see this situation as an all or nothing reality – go big or go home. You have forgotten that life does not really work like that. Perhaps, if you took even fifteen minutes a day to go for a walk, or do some simple calisthenics or stretching in your own home – it would be better than NOTHING.

The Christian life is often like that. We set these unrealistically high goals based on ideals concerning our commitment to God and our personal growth in Christ. We grow impatient of God and ourselves and often begin to adhere to a rigid form of religion and religious practice to the point that we actually end up miserable. We have entered into the realm of legalism and if we do not realize that deception quickly, we will leave a path of utter destruction wherever we go.

Legalism kills the human spirit and reproduces itself rapidly like a virus gone rampant. It is the very opposite of what God intends for us.

Allow me to explain. The process of change in our walk with Christ is initiated by Him and for our benefit – it is the love of God that compels us.

For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 2 Corinthians 5:14 NIV

God draws us to Himself and brings about personal growth and effective change based on RELATIONSHIP. God pursues us, not the other way around, despite our best attempts. This may sound like heresy to the individual who’s life is full of Do’s and Don’ts and adheres to a rigid form of religious Christianity. After all, “faith without works is dead”. Allow me to suggest that WORKS without faith, i.e. a true relationship with Jesus Christ, is what truly brings destruction and death. To polish a cup on the outside without washing and cleaning the inside is futile – the cup is still dirty from the inside out.

The visible Church and many of its institutions as we know it, is populated by individuals, who through their own self-effort via religious practice, have polished the outside and neglected the inside. This may appear acceptable to the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees, but almost the entire world outside of those institutions can spot a fake when they see one. As I have mentioned in a previous post, young people, especially the Millennials of our society, crave for the genuine. If you offer something to them that is real and tangible they often will not refuse. They may have many intellectual and emotional objections to Christianity based on what they have witnessed over their relatively short lifetimes, but they will recognize LIFE when they see it.

So what does this have to do with my initial premise, the all or nothing mentality of living? Well, actually a lot. You see, as followers of Christ, we can grow very impatient with ourselves when we see others in our circle who seem so peaceful and loving. Their apparent character is almost enviable, and we get down on ourselves for being so shallow and full of holes. We are no longer satisfied with the slow process of growth and change and our love relationship with God is growing cold. The very process of exchanging our lives for His, piece by piece, bit by bit, can be an excruciating process – death on the cross invariably is.

My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20 NLT

God is not interested in polishing the outside of our cup in order for us to be acceptable to the religious world. He is interested in recreating us into His perfect image, based upon His endless pursuit of loving us into true completeness as sons and daughters of the King.

And have you forgotten the encouraging words God spoke to you as his children? He said, “My child, don’t make light of the LORD’s discipline, and don’t give up when he corrects you. For the LORD disciplines those he loves, and he punishes each one he accepts as his child.” Hebrews 12:5,6 NLT

It is so much better to wait patiently upon the Lord, through prayer, meditation, and the reading of Scripture, for Him to act. Our endless struggle to try to change ourselves ceases and we literally enter into His peace or rest.

The more He changes me from the inside out, the more comfortable I become with who I really am, a son of God, a child of the King, created for His good pleasure. To discover one’s true identity and true personhood in Christ is to experience a joy that is indescribable.

Be still in the presence of the LORD, and wait patiently for him to act. Psalm 37:7b NLT


Above all else, I would like you to understand one simple thing – God loves you, right where you are, and whoever you are, RIGHT NOW. Even if you have not really understood one word I have written – know that YOU are LOVED by God. It does not matter where you are and what your are experiencing – YOU are NOT alone. He is PRESENT with YOU.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

My friend, it is time to come out of the closet…

The Closet Christian
“I am a closet Christian. At least, I was until now. Because in my circle, nothing is more embarrassing than being religious.” Ada Calhoun, Salon Magazine

We have every controversial group in America coming out of the closet, but many of you Christian men (and women) are still hiding in there with the light switch off and the door locked. Here you are receiving all of God’s truly remarkable blessings, and you still won’t swing open that closet door and tell the world who you are.

Tony Evans, Th.D

This post is dedicated to my friends and associates, the individuals that I have had the pleasure of participating with in cycling, swimming, running, cross country skiing, and rock climbing and mountaineering over the last couple of decades.

Continue reading “My friend, it is time to come out of the closet…”

Secular Humanism & It’s End Result

The newly elected Pope, John Paul II (Karol Jozef Wojtyla) of Poland, October 19, 1978. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)

Man can build a world without God, but this world will end by turning against him.

Pope John Paul II on secular humanism and it’s end result.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.