I think it ties into the imago dei and the complexity of man. I agree that man is idolatrous at his root, but that idolatry takes on different forms or presuppositions. I definitely think that we can show the “irrationality” of unbelieving thought if we give them enough rope, but the reason this isn’t always convincing is because of the nature of man’s idolatry. For example, I believe Hitchens book is horrible. I am reading it and thinking, “Who would buy this crap?” There are those, like Michael Kinsley, that think it is a good book. From the Christian standpoint this might be best exemplified with the “problem of evil”. Now, I think “evil” only makes sense given theism and I think I have an intellectually satisfying answer to the problem, but this satisfaction is found in Christ and not certain knowledge per se. My answer is more along the lines of a child knowing his father – “Will not the judge of all the world do right?” – than of the “scientist”. Yet, in knowing this, I am not always emotionally satisfied with that answer. Not that there is a disconnect between “head and heart knowledge”, but the complexity of the imago dei, the effect of sin, and host of other variables I am not aware of.

Anyway, should I become a pragmatist in apologetics? Do I do “what works” or stick with my convictions of valid and invalid arguments? Part of me is convinced of becoming a pragmatist, because I am jettisoning my Christian “rationalism” for something else (don’t know what that is yet). Should Christians take every thought captive, destroying strongholds, etc.? Yes. What this looks like, however, is not simply a “conflict of worldviews”. I am more convinced that this addresses issues of loneliness, bitterness, hurt, and not merely the “presuppositions of unbelieving thought”. If I am engage in a public debate with a “new atheist”, the local atheist and agnostic club, then I will be more committed to “presuppositional apologetics”, but a pragmatist over coffee.

Despite these errors, Hitchens is a good writer and a better rhetorician. The vast majority of Hitchen’s opening chapter is a lot of smoke and mirrors. Religion seems scary as his various mirrors distort the image, but there are problems from the word go. The chapter is titled “Putting It Mildly”. It is not that he really develops his argument in a cold scientific and reasonable fashion, but he whips up the emotions of the reader. As he seeks to put God in the dock, he goes after the “religious”, putting them on the defensive, and to win the emotions of jury getting him half-way victory. Look at this for an opening paragraph:

If the intended reader of this book should want to go beyond disagreement with its author and try to identify the sins and deformities that animated him to write it (and I have certainly noticed that those who publicly affirm charity and compassion and forgiveness are often inclined to take this course), then he or she will not just be quarreling with the unknowable and ineffable creator who—presumably—opted to make me this way. They will be defiling the memory of a good, sincere, simple woman, of stable and decent faith, named Mrs Jean Watts.

Right from the opening bell he is shuffling his fight, winding up his punch, and seeking to put the “theist”, or at least religion, on the ropes. He quickly adds to this his autobiographical triumph from a schoolboy to his arrival into atheism as a young teen. He concludes this autobiography by stating, “There still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.” Those are the four problems with “religion”. For the Christian, ask yourself, is he really touching my worldview? I can readily assent that “religion”, however that is being defined, can misrepresent the origins of man, produces servility and solipsism, sexual repression and wish-thinking, but that is not really an argument against the existence of YHWH (”Christianity”) as it could be an observation about “religion”, which could very well do these things.

While these are four irreducible objections to religion he says of his own credo, “And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically…and find that serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books.” Anyone that can buy into his first sentence is way down on the evolutionary chain. Imagine a Christian debating Hitchens and claiming, “Our science is not science. Our reason is not reason.” Here are a few more quotables from Hitchens, showing his intellectual schizophrenia and will be handy throughout the rest of the book, so mark them down and keep them in mind.

“Now at last you can be properly humble in the face of your maker, which turns out not to be a ‘who,’ but a process of mutation with rather more random elements than our vanity might wish.”

“The most educated person in the world now has to admit—I shall not say confess—that he or she knows less and less but at least knows less and less about more and more.”

“When the intellectual universe alters, in other words, I don’t feel arrogant enough to exempt myself from self-criticism. And I am content to think that some contradictions will remain contradictory, some problems will never be resolved by the mammalian equipment of the human cerebral cortex, and some things are indefinitely unknowable. If the universe was found to be finite or infinite, either discovery would equally stupefying and impenetrable to me. And though I have met many people much wiser and more clever than myself, I know of nobody who could be wise or intelligent enough to say differently.”

In one breadth he acts humble, sweeter than baby Jesus in a manger, but in the next he has the dogmatism of a vengeful humanism. His epistemological humility a product of his worldview? Why does he fluctuate between “relativism” and “dogmatism”? He finishes the chapter with a flurry and a very funny quote, given what he just said, “And as it happens, I will continue to do this (be polite to religions) without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.”

Now, notice what he has done here. He wants to claim that “religion”, whatever that may be, causes people to harm him and it essentially poisons everything. Yet, he says, “Past and present religious atrocities have occurred not because we are evil, but because it is a fact of nature that the human species is, biologically, only partly rational. Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder.” How dare him blame religion for what evolution, science, or nature has done. The audacity of some is unbecoming. But it simply begs the question, is he saying these unhappy things because of his prefrontal lobes or is there some other cause? I don’t want to use the word “reason” here, because, as he says, man is only partly rational. If, however, man is only partly rational, why should reason govern anything, including our thinking, opposed to that other part? Why should not the other part, whatever that is, govern us? He says that “religion” is incapable of leaving him alone, but can he really blame “religion” for what the prefrontal lobe is doing?

As Hitchen’s sets out the parameters of the discussion, I believe he is in checkmate from the opening move. There is no evil, but simply the reaction of the frontal lobes, etc., and how biological species respond. This will undercut most of his arguments. Why should reason govern man if he is only “partly” rational? What gives Hitchens the right to determine that this part of man is superior to the other part of man? As is, “putting it mildly”, Hitchen’s opening chapter is pressed through with confusion. It makes me think that the other part of Hitchen’s, not the rational part, wrote the opening chapter “putting it mildly”. As is, evolutionary man, including Hitchens, poisons everything.

Chapter 2: Religion Kills

This is a real easy chapter to critique from the standpoint of its argument against “religion”. First, it is not an argument against god’s existence. It is, again, an autobiographical sketch of his experiences where various religious factions have killed others. It is a stirring chapter. Is one of those chapters that makes you say, “How long, O Lord?” There is evil in the world. Actually, no, there isn’t evil and none of these events are evil or the work of religion. Remember, “Past and present religious atrocities have occurred not because we are evil, but because it is a fact of nature that the human species is, biologically, only partly rational. Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder.”

So, far from religion killing, man kills.

Wilson’s last line is definitely worth a read. Very good stuff.

Get’em!!!!!!!!!!!

This same rule applies to “minimum wage” laws.

So, how do I know God forgives me? My answer revolved around the fact that I have a specific God that I am introducing you to, he cannot lie, he loves us, Christ died for us, and he says, “If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” There are others, but that is the short of short. I was thinking about this last night and rejoice that I get to preach the forgiveness of sins to sinners.

Now, what worldview can provide a basis for environmentalism? Evolution, I don’t believe, can get to a moral “ought”, so this doesn’t really provide a basis. Some form of pantheism? No, because pollution would be just as much god or an illusion, so that doesn’t provide a basis. Judaism? No, because they have no way to deal with sin since the destruction of their temple (yom kippur is far, far away from biblical atonement). Islam? They might provide a paradigm for environmentalism, but I am not sure of their eschatology and the place of creation within it.

This, I believe, will become more pressing as things heat up (Yes, bad pun intended) in the global warming discussion. For example, Al Gore recently called it a “spiritual crisis”. He says, “ “It’s in part a spiritual crisis,” Gore told the crowd in the Convention Center at the American Institute of Architects national convention. “It’s a crisis of our own self-definition — who we are. Are we creatures destined to destroy our own species? Clearly not.” He runs into all sorts of problems at this point, because, believe it or not, he is delving into eschatology. Granted, he would not use that term, but that is the idea he is driving at. The more I look at this issue the more I realize that it is religious in nature. Now, the fact that Al and a host of pantheists and new age religions are promoting environmentalism does not negate Christian involvement. However, what I think it does is, hopefully, make us explicitly Christian in our outlook. I am not suggesting a “Greens for Christ” movement or anything like that, but we have to do any work in light of creation, fall, and redemption. If this is not present, then I believe our efforts are in vain.

First, I am often opposed by the “relational evangelists”. This is the group that thinks the Gospel can only be “preached” after a relationship is established. They think that because I am preaching the Gospel that no one will ever get saved and I will push people away. How they can arrive at this conclusion from reading the Scriptures is beyond me. Yes, I believe that relationships are vital, and, I must confess, that the vast majority of the fruit that I am aware of in my ministry is through students following up with their friends and fellow students after I am there. For example, I arrive and preach the Gospel from noon to five. During that time, even those that don’t stop to listen, are confronted by a person that stands 5′6″ tall and talking about Jesus. God, the Bible, Jesus, Sin, and redemption become the issue for the day. Those that walk by will talk with those Christians they know on campus and it is explicitly evangelistic. Those that stop will go back to their dorms and talk with fellow Christians in explicitly evangelistic conversations. It is at this point that I hear about the most fruit. I regularly hear, “Thanks for being here last semester. Remember the kid that was x, y, and z? Well, he came back to the dorm and he kept asking us questions and we’ve been discussing things for the 6 months and he just became a Christian.”

Then there is the “Way of the Master” group. This is a new group of Christians on campus that I have not met until this past week. They oppose me not because I am not being relational enough, but because I am NOT preaching the law enough or I am appealing to their “intellect” too much. Honestly, I have heard these objections. If I would just preach the law, then people would see their need for a Savior and repent. They don’t need “intellectual” arguments, but need their conscience pierced. Well, I agree, but disagree. Yes, the law has its place in bringing people to Jesus, but not in a formulaic way. The same goes with their conscience. I see the intellectual arguments relating to their conscience and stripping away their excuses, which often leads to a greater “vulnerability”. After debating various issues with students I can often ask, “Now, what is really going on with you?” This is not my example, but my friend Tom was preaching at Colorado and he was being adamantly opposed by a fellow. After a period vitriolic speech at Tom he the young man confesses that he lost both of his parents 5 years ago by murder. He was involved with the Church and everyone told him, “It happened for a reason.” He thought it through and couldn’t find a reason, so he concluded that there was no god or he was angry with god.

Third, and related to the first, is the “incarnational/contextual evangelists”. They are think preaching the Gospel is irrelevant and what is needed is “service” of the college students, which might include handing out free drinks, cleaning fraternity bathrooms, etc., or that they think open-air preaching may have been “affective” in a bygone era, but not now. Personally, I beg to differ for similar reasons as the first. Also, at campuses that I frequent I am able to develop these relationships with the students and become more “incarnational”.

Fourth, there is the Christian pluralist. In many ways, I would not consider this group part of Christendom, although have a thin veneer of Christianity. This is the group that says, “There are many paths to the same place. We (all religions) are headed to the same path via different routes.” To this group I think the story of Scripture needs repeating. There is no way you can read about the Exodus and conclude that YHWH is content with many gods. The same for Elijah and the prophets of Baal, David and Goliath, or Jesus Christ and the Pharisees.

Related to this is seeing the broad spectrum of Churches. Again, this is good and bad. I see many things the church does and just think it is flat out cheesey. I realize more and more that many churches are simply a marketing machine.

All of this causes me to get a rash. Part of me wants to take on a messianic complex and just say, “Well, the religious groups of the day rejected Jesus, so they are going to reject me.” If I am honest with myself, then I cannot let myself get away with such arrogant thinking. At the same time, putting all of my hope on grace and the absolute sovereignty of God, I think, what a rich and diverse body we have in Christ. We are constantly telling each other that we don’t need each other or that everyone should be a hand, or a foot, or a mouth, but that the body of Christ is really, really rich. It will not be until that final day that every thought, word, and deed is revealed, but until that day we have one crazy Church to work with, which includes myself.

Anyway, I finished Harris’ book and read a lot of John Frame, but never really got into Gilead. I read the first 20 or so pages, but was never that engrossed. I think I have to come to the realization that I will never be a fiction reader. Sure, I enjoy the occasional story, but I never find myself unable to put down a novel. I do, however, find myself like that with the Scriptures, theology, apologetics, and, at times, philosophy. Can this be changed? Maybe I should just concede that I will never be a novel reader and spend my time with what I enjoy. I am, however, regularly jealous of those that are able to read fiction and enjoy it. I enjoy short stories, but not the long stories.

All in all, I really, really enjoyed my week off. I thought about work about 3 times while I was home and that was because I forgot to put my “out of office” feature on my email.

And she wants to claim that he is polarizing the country. This tells me two things: 1) I don’t want a socialist to ever come close to winning an election in this country. 2) I don’t ever want a women to ever come close to winning an election in this country. In other words, please don’t vote for Hillary.

An example of this can be at SRU. Now, I realize that not everyone, maybe even most don’t, likes me being out there, but it seems they are bent on finding the ones that don’t. Also, they rarely seem to set the context. I was quoted in the “The Rocket” as saying that a lesbian was a “glorious ruin” and stained because of her sin. Now, there is an element of truth to this, but I was preaching on creation at this point. That all men and women were created in the image of God, but due to sin we are ruined. The lesbian asks, “Are you saying I don’t bear the image of God?” “Well, yes you do, but not in its fulness. You are a glorious ruin.” I then said something like “You were created to be holy, to be righteous and to be pure, but you have become ruined and stained by sin.” Yet, with Paul, I proceeded to explain that she can be “wash and cleansed”, hence the language of staining.

Anyway, the newspaper simply reports:

One issue that seemed to keep coming up in the discussion was homosexuality. A student came out and told Darrell that she was gay and asked Darrell what he thought of her sexual orientation.

Darrell replied by calling her a “glorious ruin,” saying that she was born glorious but has decided to stain herself.

Now, this is a “yes” and “no” from my perspective, but this makes me sound like a Pelagian, which my very “sermon” at the point was demanding I was not. A good part of the day was spent discussing the idea that “homosexuality was a choice”. I tried to explain again and again that it is more complex than that and I don’t understand all of the choices I make let alone making a choice sexually like you do any other product. After thinking the day goes so well and you get a lot of good feedback from students it is discouraging to read.

Another issue that kept coming up was “hell” and who is “condemned”. I regularly skirted the issue, knowing it was some students way to rile the crowd. At one point a student said, “Who are you to judge? How can you condemn us to hell?” I asked the crowd, “Anyone that has been here for a substantive period of time, has hell been on my lips? Have I condemned anyone?” There was no answer. I proceeded with, “The only time hell or condemnation comes up is when the students bring it up.” They dropped the issue after that, but it is one of those things where you just scratch your head.

I trust I preached the Gospel and that it is the power of God unto salvation and there are those that will hear what they want to hear.

The two main highlights, at least for me, included a “lowlight”.

The issue of abortion came up. I spent some time stating why I believe abortion is wrong. Within this, one girl was adamantly opposing me and kept defending abortion. After a bit of back and forth I finally asked, “Did you have an abortion?” She just started crying. Unfortunately, she didn’t want to talk with me individually and was pretty angry with me. Fortunately, she stayed around and wanted to listen to the preaching of the word. I wish there was at least another week of school, so we could be out there again and maybe follow-up with her. I don’t know her name, but if you think about it pray for her.

As always, homosexuality came up. One student, Ben, asked about the issue and I spent some time addressing it. After finishing, I sat down a about an hour or so later Ben came up to ask me about the issue – “Would you mind showing me why you think homosexuality is wrong in the Bible?” My basic outline was that all of our relationships are created by God and we are reflect God’s image in our relationship. One of the relationships God reveals in Scripture is that he is a husband and Israel or the Church is his Bride. God is always presented as a he in this context and Israel or the Church as a she. God is never seen as a homosexual in Scripture. This is reflected in creation with Adam and Eve and is fundamental to the storyline. We then looked at specific verses. He was inundated with homosexual propaganda, thinking that the prohibition in Leviticus was temporary. After looking asking him about all the other verses in Leviticus, considering creation, and the New Testaments teachings, do you really think it temporary? He gave an honest answer, “No.” He thanked me for explaining it to him and it was a lot more clear to him. He said he grew up a Mormon, but that he was essentially interested in orthodox Christianity. Again, if you think about it, please pray for him.

I arrived around 11:30 and set up shop where I did in the fall. I had the Bible under my arm and started pacing, waiting for a class change-over and for the opporunity to begin. Before I opened my mouth an older man asked me, “Is that a Bible under your arm?” The question was loaded and I could easily tell he had an agenda. Well, he was handing out tracts and he wanted to convince me I wasn’t really saved. He was some “holiness” (read legalist) preacher and an extreme fundamentalist. It was even difficult to communicate with him, because he had a chapter and verse sans context to prove his point. Upon seeking to demonstrate his insanity from history and Scripture he said, “Even the Devil quoted Scripture.” How do you respond to that?

Well, he left and I proceded to preach. Unfortunately I didn’t get much of a crowd during the first change-over, but a small handful of “Didn’t you already get kicked out of here” and “I thought we told you we didn’t want you here” referring to the police being called in in the fall. So, I stopped for a bit, prayed, and preached at the next change over. Again, much of the same response. I prayed some more and figured, “The third time is the charm.” And, sure enough, it was. A crowd began to quickly form and grew to about 75 or so people. I notice the police arrive and one stood at each end of the crowd. Most of the discussion was pretty good and the students didn’t resort to some of their ad hom tactics in the fall. In the fall I was randomly accussed of denying the holocaust, that I thought God hated fags, that I was a racist and all sorts of crazy accusations. The crowd was more subdued, attentive, and asked better questions. I was pretty rusty apologetically, but I felt like the day was pretty strong. After about an hour and a half the police sought to stop the preaching. I told them the university promised there would be no problems, and they said, “Oh, there is no problem, but we are just asking you to wrap it up.” That’s a problem to me, so I produced the letter the university wrote to the ACLU. Upon reading this the office smiled and said, “Okay, go ahead.” I preached for another two to two and a half hours. Around 5:00 I wrapped up the meeting and proceeded to talk with about 10 students about various things. The students were very positive, thanking me for being out there, offering up good practical advice on the preaching (”slow down”, “don’t use big words”), and one even took me up on an invitation to dinner. One of the highlights, at least for me, was the positive response from Christians. Last fall they adamantly opposed me, especially Campus Crusade, but a Crusader came out, shook my hand, and said, “This was great. I came out because I heard you were here and remember the controversy in the fall. We had an open forum on you and everything. It was pretty lame, because only Crusaders showed up. I was waiting for you to say something real controversial or stupid, but I think I agreed with everything you said. I don’t know what the problem was.”

Aside from not putting sunscreen on and receiving good sunburn the day was outstanding.

There are several things I hope to accomplish on this vacation.

First, Reading: “Letter to a Christian Nation” by Sam Harris; “Gilead: A Novel” by Marilynne Robinson; A general study of Van Til’s “Defense of the Faith“, which consists of readings in various Van Til’s works, John Frame’s “Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought“, “The Doctrine of God“, and Russell’s “Problems Of Philosophy“, and, if I have time, Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” and Hofstadter’s “Social Darwinism in American Thought“. Much like my weight loss “plan”, I bet I will come back next week saying, “Well, I finished Harris’ book, but…” Ambition is a good thing. Actually, I am almost done with Harris (it’s only 96 pages, I think), so I think Gilead is likely, but my Van Til study is too meandering to expect to be done any time soon.

Second, Preaching: I will spend at least three days, weather permitting and Lord willing, preaching at several college campuses. I covet your prayers for this – power in the preaching, the Spirit’s annointing, patience, gentleness, respect.

Third, PCA: The PCA has issued their report regarding the FV. Personally, I am sympathetic to this view, but willing to listen to the church on the matter. From this layman’s perspective the committee seems stacked, but…I look forward to reading their report, the points and counterpoints as well.

Fourth, “Home”: It’s nice to be out of the Big Apple, have some space, and to be able to relax.

On a related note, granted you pay an annual fee, but you have to pay your card balance off, at least the card I have, within 60 days or you cannot use your card. This helps minimize debt, making you (at least in theory) a responsible consumer. You cannot rack up tons of debt, assuming basic responsibility, and you cannot defer payments or make a “minimum payment”. I didn’t appreciate this in college, but when I talk to people coming out of college with credit card debt I am glad i was making that payment every month.

Anyway, I realize this is a step away from theology, politics, and what not, but I as a free-marketer I think it important to promote good products and spread the word.

2. Inhofe dares Hollywood to take a global warming pledge. Inhofe challenged Gore last month, but Gore excused the idea, because he has a “self-imposed carbon tax to offset the environmental damage”. Can you do that? Can you just pump pollution into the air and pay a tax to offset it? That seems more hokey than global warming, but he’s Al Gore, so he’ll get away with it.

Thanks to all of you who prayed for me today. It was much more difficult than I imagined it would be. I thought I would step out and begin preaching the Gospel, but that wasn’t the case. Upon finding the student union the crowd was rather sparce, so it was difficult to determine when to start preaching. When I did think it was the right time my body didn’t want to go. Simply, it was terrifying. Finally, after about an hour of reading and rereading Romans 1:16-17 and 2 Timothy 1:7 I began to preach.

The crowd was rather small, but it was good for my first time. There were about 3 people (out of about 12) who seemed to really listen, but the others were only marginally listening. There was no heckling, debating or confrontations. I really hope to limit any major confrontations or heckling, but I don’t mind ‘debating’ various issues with the students. This will make
things go easier, because it is extremely difficult to continuously preach for long periods of time with a changing crowd without being extremely repititous.

Upon finishing, which actually only lasted about 20 minutes, I was absolutley, physically drained. Between being anxious, preaching (which is draining), the hot sun, and little interaction from the crowd I was spent. After about 2:00 there was very little activity in front of the student union, so we called it a day. The plan for tomorrow is to preach from 10:00-2:00 at Slippery Rock University again.

As I write this morning there is definitely fear and trembling, but it is difficult to believe that the Spirit will work through my preaching. Thank you again for praying for me.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Shortly after the fall Cain kills Abel, because Abel’s sacrifice was accepted by God and Cain’s was not. The text reads, “So Cain was very angry, and his face fell.” In the recent photos released I believe that “anger” and “fallen face” easily describe Mr. Cho. The anger in the photos is pure and unadulterated. Later in Genesis Lamech boasts, “Listen to what I have to say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.” The pride and boasting in these videos is evident, claiming his victimhood is beyon the boasting of Cain. Yes, he is angry, but he is not a victim. He is narcistic to the core of his being and boasts like Lamech. This narcissism and degeneration is seen throughout the chapters leading to the flood. After the flood the Lord says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

How or why he wrestled with God we do not know, but I believe this is at the heart of the struggle and the killings. Ultimately, he hated God and he wanted to wipe out any vestige of his image. These killings were the overflow of his heart. His heart was evil, murderous, and violent. This is why stories like this and the students comments are misdirected. In the book of Revelation, John describes Nero as a beast. Paul describes the people he fought in Ephesus as “beasts”. This man should be described as a beast. He is not a victim. A facebook.com group called “Eternal Rest Grant Unto Him, O Lord” is a far cry from the the prayers of the persecuted who cry: “O Sovereign Lord, oly and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” “On the group’s bulletin board, 19-year-old Montclair State University freshman Justin Heba explained why he joined the group, writing: “Cho Seung-Hui lived eight-thousand, four-hundred, and eighty-nine days. I and no reasonable person, or deity, could or should allow the events of one of them to discount the other eight-thousand, four-hundred, and eighty-eight,” the student wrote. “You will be in my prayers, Cho, though I never knew you — it is a shame that you died the way you did, and that so many others died that day too.”

Who is Justin Heba praying to? Why is Mr Cho in his prayers? Mr Heba’s deity is not the God of the Bible. If Mr Heba is honest with himself and others, then he would realize that Mr Cho, and he, spent 8,489 days in rebellion to his Creator and spent the last day of his life seeking to wipe out any image of his creator all to bring himself to the throne of judgment with the blood of 32 innocents in his hands. That is Mr Cho’s motivation – “deicide”. He is many things, but a victim is not one of them, lest we forget, “Out of the heart comes the issues of life…”

There are an handful of issues before me (all personal and nothing “real” serious), but I want to be faithful with my time and energy. There are a couple projects I want to write, one centering on the resurrection and the other centered on Van Til’s apologetic. The former, I hope, is for the broader church and the apologetic is more for me, but, also, maybe a primer for someone just getting into Van Til. I am frustrated that I waste time and have not accomplished these.