One of the more imponderable aspects of the growing number of agnostics and atheists is their claim that there is no evidence for the intelligent creator of the universe that we call God. But clearly the created universe manifests intelligibility and order from the farthest reaches of the cosmos and outer space down to our small planet and further down into the “inner space” of microscopic bacteria, cells, and the intricate order of atoms and molecules. Science affirms the Creator by uncovering the inner order and intelligibility of created things. But strangely, the opposite trend seems be happening in this age of science.
Indeed, creation is a veritable symphony of billions of notes and movements working together in an extraordinary harmony and melody which seem to shout, “I was composed, and carefully though out. My master artist and composer is also the great conductor of my symphony, so carefully laid out.”
That the created world is intelligible is the very basis of the sciences. The world manifests meaning that we can discover and it moves along in predictable ways; it does not randomly change from one thing to the next from moment to moment. Because there is order and intelligibility, a scientist can predict, propose and test theories, and replicate results. Without order and intelligibility there could be no scientific method.
And yet many of the scientists who use this scientific method deny the Intelligence who gives the intelligibility that their science presumes. For if the created world is intelligible, then clearly an intelligence imposed this intelligibility upon it. That the created world manifests order demonstrates that someone so ordered it.
Even if one were to argue that all of this intricate order happened just by accident at one moment, it would then require something to maintain that order and keep it from breaking down the very next instant into something completely different. And yet this does not happen. Reality does not randomly mutate suddenly into something else. It follows predictable laws, and changes are orderly and exhibit continuity with what went before. Order is not only present at one instant, but is sustained over time and becomes demonstrably more organized as complex life forms have developed. Clearly creation tends toward a certain end in an orderly and progressive way.
That there is order and intelligibility to the created world is demonstrably true, and to deny this fact requires the status of a madman. The universe shouts out, “I was planned, and carefully executed! I have been intricately designed by an intelligent cause moving me in an intelligible direction!”
I would understand if the scientists of the physical sciences were to say that they are not equipped to opine on who or what this intelligence is. Indeed, the physical sciences are not equipped to measure the metaphysical. But that so many scientists claim the ability to deny that there is an intelligence that we believers call God, is for them to be unreasonable and to act outside of their field.
The claim that there is no God is not a scientific claim, it is a philosophical one. And those who claim that there is only the physical and not the metaphysical are making a metaphysical claim! They break their own rule in announcing it. The claim that physical science wholly explains all of reality is not a claim that can be demonstrated scientifically. So once again, the rule is broken the very moment it is announced.
Many will say that there is no evidence of God’s existence because they cannot see it under a microscope or through a telescope. But of course God is not a physical being; he does not tip our scales. He cannot be physically measured any more than can intelligence, justice, mercy, beauty, or any other metaphysical concept. None of these tip a scale or can be seen with the tools of physical science. But they are no less real.
For a reasonable person, there is a great deal of evidence of a Creator, as described above. The whole created world is steeped in intelligibility and order. There is a magnificent interplay between material, efficient, formal, and final causality. The created world shouts by its intelligibility of the intelligence that made it so. It sings, by its order, of the one who so ordered it.
Existence itself proclaims the questions: “Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there anything at all?” The only reasonable answer that can come back from the existing cosmos is, “I was caused!” Something cannot cause itself anymore than you and I can cause ourselves. We, and the entire cosmos, were caused by someone other than ourselves and outside of ourselves. The cosmos says, “Someone outside of me caused me. That is why I exist. That is why anything exists at all.”
We moderns have become very obtuse and turned inward. If anything, we should be more convinced than ever that God exists as our sciences have revealed such incredible complexity and intricate order at every layer and level of creation. We should be on our knees singing of the incredible wisdom of the Creator who has so perfectly ordered every level of his creation. And yet sadly just the opposite seems to be happening—agnosticism and atheism are growing.
Far too many scientists, who should know better (for there would not be science at all without the intelligibility built into creation), make unfounded denials of God, a pronouncement that is clearly outside their field of expertise. And because so many of us idolize the physical sciences, we give great weight to their nonscientific claims.
In all of this tragic turn of events I am somehow mindful of a little parable told by Venerable Fulton Sheen many decades ago wherein he likens many modern men to a little mouse:
Those who refuse to unify the cosmos in terms of Pure Intelligence but content themselves with secondary causes maybe likened to an all-wise mouse living in a grand piano who…explained the music by the play of hammers on the strings, the action of which could be seen in his own narrow little world. Scientists catch the tune, but miss the player [Old Errors and New Labels Fulton J. Sheen 1931. P. 17].
Yes, we have become mousy in our thinking. We prefer to live inside the piano and explain the music of the spheres only internally, never thinking of the great artist outside, who gives and causes the magnificent, understandable, beautiful, and intricate melody we hear.
Sadly, the great debate over the existence of God seems only to grow, even as the evidence of intelligibility, order, and design increases. It is a great debate of mice and men.
Are you a mouse, or are you a man?
In this video, behold the song of the cosmos:
31 Replies to “Of Mice and Men: Pondering the strange loss of faith in an age of science.”
It is more a case of Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson than a debate of Mice and Men.
Sheen’s mouse is a great analogy for us in the choir, but a horrible teaching tool for the skeptical “heathen.”
We have billions of mice in that piano who have all been taught to believe in the secular piano, and that the pious mice are hypocrites clinging to fairy tales.
So what do we offer them? For a microbiologist who experiments on mice and has been taught her entire life that science is the ultimate Truth, and has been taught the myth that religions have caused all the misery and war throughout history…what does this analogy have to offer her?
Were the Ten Commandments originally communicated to us under AES-256 encryption over wifi? Or were they expressed in a language people of the time could understand?
What if Saint Peter is ok with my works and deeds to a point, but asks me about the next fellow in line who’s an atheist scientist?
“But I could not convince him! He would not hear the Word!”
And what if Peter tells me, “You were given the tools to help them, and you were aware of his ignorance, but you refused to even try to tell him in a language he could understand.”
And so the ignorant secularist gets a pass and I’m sent down the elevator shaft to consider my sin.
We can’t just scream KJV words to the aborigines. Like Sayers, L’Engle or Lewis, we have to make a compelling, contemporary case in THEIR vocabulary.
You ask a lot of questions but you don’t answer. For the record I am writing for the choir and attempting to show them how strangely unreasonable the stance of the unbelievers is. Rather than simply point out the inadequacy of an argument I am not making (or Sheen) why not address a few of your critiques and develop the perfect mousetrap to catch a few atheists materialists and agnostics? In other words why not do what you describe yourself? Go make the compelling case in THEIR vocabulary. Some of the rest of us do need to strengthen the choir while you’re out doing that.
I am attempting to ‘translate’ the map to others in my own life, even as we all grow and find our own path toward God.
And I appreciate the need for feeding the flock we have, as opposed to chasing down strays we don’t.
Consider this article from April in Canada:
‘Nova Scotia Barrister’s Society council ruled Friday that Trinity Western University must drop a covenant that prohibits same-sex intimacy before graduates from the school would be allowed to enrol in the province’s bar admission program. That decision came a day after the Law Society of Upper Canada’s board of directors in Ontario decided they will not allow the school’s graduates to practise in that province, condemning the covenant as “abhorrent.”‘
The USA is not far from that point, either! Christianity is not only misunderstood, but is actively being demonized as your posts have many times acknowledged.
I do NOT critique you or Sheen, or your focus. Engaging those outside the fold is not for everyone, but preparing a welcoming environment within the fold for those who have been outside is also important!
Yes, thanks. But still there is my puzzlement that ask all these questions with somewhat of a cautionary tone, but do not seek to answer them. How do you propose we speak “THEIR” language? Natural Law is rejected, even the physical sciences have been corrupted by so many causes and agendas. What do you mean by welcoming environment?
As in my reply to David F below, I would give mathematics as an example of “their” language.
Atheists mock our concept of an omniscient, omnipresent God.
Well, secular mathematicians must accept the concept of infinity. Man cannot comprehend infinity fully, but we can discuss it in the abstract. Not synonymous, of course, but it is a similar conceptual language that can bridge the chasm of understanding faith.
We know the devil loves to attend church looking for converts. We need more saints visiting lecture halls and laboratories where he thinks he has already won!
I agree with what Msgr. Pope says. But you also need to realize that a failure to convince someone does not mean that the words were defective. It can also (and often does) mean that someone is simply not open and refuses to be convinced.
When the rational thinker carries out rational thoughts in a logical framework but irrationally includes the introductory premise that:
there is no God,
or Catholics are wrong,
or there is no metaphysical,
then the conclusion will always reflect that unsupported first premise.
There are too many who want to open their minds in a manner that also includes closing their minds to God.
When this is the case, we can only pray for them.
I see your argument, and ultimately agree with your conclusion, but the response from one who doesn’t believe is pretty straightforward: our universe is intelligible to us simply because we spring from the same framework that it is made of. The fact that it makes sense and is very intricate isn’t itself prove of design, just proof that this particular “recipe” worked out. If it hadn’t, we wouldn’t exist to know it.
The argument you reference is circular and still does not explain the fact of intelligibility. Effects have causes and this cannot be set aside. Same for the design. What is the cause of the intricate design, what is the cause of the intelligibility?
If one dodges the cause question the recipe argument requires billions of moving parts, processes, and chemicals to come together in just the right way, not once, (since the universe is vast and reproduction is necessary) but many many times, and then the recipe would have to cancel out all sorts of other random events that would destroy the mix and recipe, (since randomness by definition introduces unpredictable and likely catastrophic emergences). Frankly it requires more “faith” to believe this blind accidental combination of billions of moving parts all woking wonderfully together happened by accident and is stably sustained by nothing except blind, random chance than to accept that a designer carefully planed and set forth things.
But again, all this fanciful theorizing still dodges the question, “What is the cause of the effect that is demonstrably evident, namely intelligibility?”
It is a modern creation where the idea that our universe happened to construct itself randomly in such a manner and that we are the beneficiaries of those lucky dice rolled without a “roller”. That all happens to maintain its stability regarding universal rules and laws simply happens to be a lucky “sub-roll” of those lucky dice.
Curiously, this idea quickly evolves into the entirely unsupported idea that there are or could be unlimited other universes, each different due to random factors differing from ours. Of course, this completely unscientific pondering is gaining momentum as “scientists” with a vested interest in the lucky dice (‘now we can avoid God!’) realise that the theory is pure speculation but a narrative to counter the tradition of the Judaeo-Christian God must be constructed.
Therefore, you are very right in challenging the factors involved in constructing this Godless universe (or “multiverse”). It seems that because it has not randomly fallen apart yet, then that is proof that the lucky dice were particularly lucky for us in “our” universe and ergo God does not exist.
This utter non-science and terrible metaphysics must be challenged at every turn. You are very right to brand it as tautological for it merely supports itself.
You reply here once reveals your ignorance of modern philosophy and scientific method (which I find it all too common with Catholic apologists who act as if modern philosophy was great mistake and should be ignored). Causation is not intelligible or rational. Our knowledge of specific causes and effects is probabilistic and justified only by our experience of specific causes and effects. No guaranteed rule about cause and effect can be rationally deduced from one specific case. The ultimately basis for our knowledge of cause and effect is simply the fact that we must ASSUME that our past experience of some particular cause and effect is a reliable means of predicting similar causes and effect. David Hume pointed these facts out long ago and no one, I repeat, no one has responded to his arguments without simply dismissing him. And, if you were to ask, any practicing scientist, he or she would tell you the same. If you had bothered to read Hume and take him seriously instead of simply dismissing him, you would have understood this and spent your time more productively engaging with real, meaningful objections rather than fighting the straw men of modern philosophy and science you build on your own.
I don’t recall mentioning Hume. But it seems the world for you revolves around Hume. All that said, If I were you I would avoid the use of the word “simply” when stating an argument. I conveys a dogmatic in an area (theory of knowledge/epistemology) where certainty is less possible. Further, “simply” signals a simplistic argument. Your use of the word “ultimately” is problematic in this regard as well.
The problem of the pain in not being able to believe centers on
the capacity to observe the metaphysical, that of course
we can’t. So few if any get to hv mystical experiences if they are true.
There is a veil, and humans beg to see beyond the veil directly, not
indirectly, analogically, or typologically. And death reinforces the pain, as no
one seems to be seen again after they are gone, unless of course u we graced
by the Resurrection about 2000 years ago. The breaking of the bread
is nice, but indirect and requires faith, which people beg for, but
do not know how to receive. God will hv to punch through eventually,
and we can only put our faith in hope and His Mercy if He is out there.
But of course the metaphysical isn’t just about mystical experiences. Justice, beauty, meaning, purpose, intelligibility etc are all metaphysical realities. They do not have physical bodies, but are very real.
I used to be an atheist and I am a Scientist by trade so I think I have some insight into these issues. The reality is that few people authentically grapple with metaphysics beyond a peripheral teenage exploration. Further those that are highly successful technically are prone to arrogance and frequently lack the ability/desire to self review (self included). This leads them to believe that since “I know a lot about math /physics I must know a lot about metaphysics , politics religion etc (e.g. Hawkins) The failure to apply the same rigor broadly and to recognize the limits of one’s understanding prevents serious philosophical examination of the metaphysical origin of the universe. That and the herd mentality/ heavy peer pressure that definitely exists in Science. There is a prejudicial dismiss condescension in Science towards all things religious. All this is a long winded way of saying that atheists are often closed minded.
Ironically it’s the rigorous Scientist who unwittingly gives some of best arguments for God. I’m think of Hawkins stating he only needs gravity to exist in order to explain the development of the universe. He statement is highly supportive of Thomas Aquinas first cause argument but he’s too blinded by pride to see it. Anyway all I’m saying is that man is not consistently rational but the pretense of “reason” amongst the atheist is commonplace.
If you can overcome the fear of social consequences long enough to honestly evaluate the possibility of God you still don’t come all the way to faith. Reason only takes you to the doorstep where you recognize the undeniable possibility of God. It does not translate to faith directly: faith is a gift. I know I was intrigued by the possibility of faith for years before I was granted it.
David, spot on. Well stated.
I believe that the biggest problem facing us today is that the western education curriculum which effectively prohibits science and engineering students from studying philosophy, art and literature.
As Monsignor states: “Justice, beauty, meaning, purpose, intelligibility etc are all metaphysical realities. They do not have physical bodies, but are very real.”
Newton, Lavoisier, Maxwell, Joule, Faraday, Ohm! These brilliant men were scientists _and philosophers_, and while they were discerning models of the physical universe we still use today, they never doubted the existence of God as Creator!
The people moving modern society today have not been trained to understand beauty in terms of code or circuitry, much less appreciate it in nature. Yet even though a math professor may not be qualified to translate scripture, mathematics is indeed divine and any-old secular math prof might inadvertently spark wonder of creation in a classically educated student and perhaps set them on a serendipitous journey back to God.
It is the silo’d nature of science and philosophy education that has been isolating the secularly educated scientist from Truth, and the creating engineer from his Creator.
I really need to edit better next time
“Many will say that there is no evidence of God’s existence because they cannot see it under a microscope or through a telescope.”
You can’t see thought under a microscope either, yet it is impossible to deny its existence.
BTW, it occurs to me the internet is proof that on some subtle level, we all (athiests, agnosts, and faithful) believe in Heaven. Let’s face it, why are we here? We seek togetherness, community, communion. Isn’t that Heaven?
Unfortunately, this same medium is man-created, therefore unable to give us that divine communion we seek. So we move from Facebook to Twitter, to whatever is popular at the moment, desperately trying to acquire that supernatural communion that seems just out of our reach.
So man keeps getting cleverer. The devil’s lies get more enticing. And we flounder. We lose hope, not because there is no God, but because we don’t look to Him. Because for all of our human approved conventions, we still deny the Truth that’s out there.
In the end, there can be only One.
Msgr., I have used variations of your argument many times in hopes of turning opinions from only science to God. It is always very difficult to contend with.
I really love Hilaire Belloc’s “Science is the enemy of Truth” chapter in his “Essays of a Catholic”. He sees this Modern Scientific Spirit as attacking “true doctrine, that is, the Catholic Church” (page 214). He warns that “it further tends to cut us off from our past and from tradition; but societies cut off from their traditions and from their past wither” (page 214). He lays out some great intelligent design arguments that can augment other debate tactics as needed. His line of thinking is well worth reading for those who fight this evil.
My observation is that we tend to be “politically correct” in our defense against “Science”. The agnostics and atheists advocating Science are directly attacking God and everything we believe. They are not civil in their tactics and their ultimate goal is our demise as a religion and a church. I think, as learned by Pro-life advocates, we need to use hard direct tactics when necessary to fight this battle. When encountered, know it is not innocent cocktail talk.
You said Msgr. “Something cannot cause itself anymore than you and I can cause ourselves. We, and the entire cosmos, were caused by someone other than ourselves and outside of ourselves. The cosmos says, “Someone outside of me caused me. That is why I exist. That is why anything exists at all.”
We have to be careful with that. Atheist then say: “what caused God if everything has a cause.”
We have to say that every *contingent* being has a cause, which brings us to a necessary being we call God which does not need a cause. Understanding what is implied by a necessary being gives us a basic understanding of what we mean by “God.” When we properly understand what is meant by contingent being and necessary being, we can see the radical difference between them and the transcendence of God.
This article of mine explains that.
“(…) you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5)
David F beat me to a punch. As a scientist by trade as well, and having lived indifferent to religion for a few decades, I rediscovered Catholicism by studying the “the heck out of it”. I too had an incomplete, immature even, understanding of the faith.
Currently, I try to understand the issue at hand by applying the following test: “does science inform your faith, or does faith inform your science?” The more science informs your faith, the more you direct it to the material – the apex being a purely materialist position, with no room for metaphysical considerations (“the magnificent, understandable, beautiful, and intricate melody we hear” is nothing more than a biochemical response to external stimuli). On the other hand, when one allows faith to inform science, the inherent beauty and order of the universe comes alive, and it becomes obvious that there must be Something behind the reality we see.
An example of this phenomenon: the ridiculous “debates” on when “life begins” or on what constitutes a “human being” – when, in general, some politicians and other pro-abortion types go all philosophical on everybody else and insist on the “who knows?” stance. Next time you find yourselves in a heated “debate” on this topic, ask your interlocutor to what does a pregnant Panda (everybody l-o-o-oves Pandas) give birth? A rock? A kangaroo, perhaps? And if it is a Panda, when does this Panda became a Panda? Is it a Panda only when it is desirable to someone that it is a Panda? If it is not desirable, it is then a non-Panda? At what point can we kill the non-Panda?
Thank you, Msgr. Pope for this post.
I think that this blog post
and the entire series it is a part of speaks directly to the issue of God, science, and the way in which God causes the world.
Also, I highly recommend to all who haven’t heard of the book, Father Spitzer’s “New Proofs for the Existence of God” and Dr. Stephen Barr’s “Modern Physics, Ancient Faith.” Both of these speak of modern science and the intelligibility of nature as well as their relation to the existence of God.
Atheists think of believers as deluded types. I try to follow Pope Francis advice and to show witness by leading a thoroughly honest life but it is difficult to argue why a non-believer could not do the same effectively. Many in my environment actually see me as a specially good person but they put it down, to some level, to naivity. Basically I fail to understand how the Apostles managed to convert anyone, it is a powerful legacy, and I keep trying but to no avail just yet. However, there is no denial that being a believer and leading an honest life is a good in itself. It also certainly inspires others. That is as much as I have achieved so far.
Very few people adopt atheism because of a genuine belief that science has proven God doesn’t exist. I think that, far more often, people who don’t like the moral laws of God seek out excuses for why they needn’t follow them and declaring He doesn’t even exist is just one manifestation of that.
In 1997, RICHARD LEWONTIN, a world renowned biologist at Harvard had this to say about science, as it is currently conceived. He asserts unequivocally that materialism and atheism are doctrinal assumptions of modern science. Atheism is not a conclusion from science, but is rather, an assumption, a starting point of science as taught in the university today. This assumption is not an exercise of reason, but of pure belief, contrary to the senses and to commonsense. It is a most stunning admission. Here is the quote:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
Many thanks for the quote Rick.
I think that non-believers start from the assumption that we – believers – are dogmatic and brainwashed. That leads them into dogmatic lifestytes with the dogma for them being science, money or a political ideology. Or all of these thrown together for good measure. Most non-believers just don’t want to know of a God who asks them to follow a law. Even when the law is simply to love your neighbour, for some this is a tall call as they are too self-absorbed in loving themselves or their own clever ways or in loving the immediate material gains that one can get in the world. When you are mature in your transcendent beliefs what these people do seems absurd and I agree with Msgr. Pope that we should be more assertive in telling them so. In the hope that tellung them might help them to be more reflective.
Western culture is twined with western science. Western science began with the understanding that we have a God of weights and measures who created the universe and all it contains. Better understanding the world we live in would get us closer to God. Western science has outperformed the science of other faith communities.
I have some mathematical training. The number i was “invented” or “discovered” as the square root of negative one, an imaginary number. Mathematicians had trouble with this until they worked out the details for how to use that number i, which coupled with real numbers became the complex numbers. Now one can not possibly be an electrical engineer without being very familiar with i. So Hamilton was fooling around for decades with why there should be just one square root of -1. He finally guessed there could be 3 square roots of -1, and so came i, j and k. Now we have quaternions. Quite the rage in the late 19th century only to be replaced by vectors. We use them today to describe the behavior of sub-atomic particles in quantum mechanics and objects in space, such as satellites. Real numbers and complex numbers are just inadequate for both purposes. Not only is there a God but he is really really smart.
I think you might be interested in my eBook “Does the Atom have a Designer?” available on Amazon.com.
Here is a link:
Evolution does not require that the universe be intelligible. Birds and animals do not care if it is.
It’s intelligible because God wants us, who possess inquiring minds, to explore His magnificent creation. But much of Physics today is speculation, and I don’t think we’ll ever understand the mind of God.
In all gentleness Lahki . . . the little statement “…I don’t think we’ll ever understand the mind of God.” is troubling to read and rather misleading. I don’t think Sacred Scripture or our Holy Mother Church supports such a concept . . .
In Sacred Scripture, James 1:5 states: “But if any of you want wisdom, let him ASK of GOD, who giveth to all men abundantly, and upbraideth not; and it SHALL be given him.”
While the LORD’S infinite Holy Mind has multitudes upon multitudes of facets like a beautiful infinitely complex diamond, our Blessed St. Jerome states clearly for us the path to understanding the Mind of GOD: “”To be ignorant of SCRIPTURE is to be ignorant of CHRIST.” Though our minds are finite and thus limited, the doorway to understanding at least portions of the infinitely glorious Mind of GOD is open to us in JESUS . . . the Blessed CHRIST . . . GOD the Son . . .
THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
Article 2 – THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
Sacred Scripture is the Speech of GOD as it is put down in writing under the breath of the HOLY SPIRIT.
Article 3 – SACRED SCRIPTURE
In SACRED SCRIPTURE, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it NOT as human word, “but as what it really is, the WORD of GOD.”
In the SACRED BOOKS, the FATHER Who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet His children, and talks with them.
“How precious also are THY THOUGHTS unto me, O GOD! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b
“For MY THOUGHTS are NOT your thoughts, neither are your ways MY WAYS, saith the LORD.” Isaiah 55:8
“So shall My WORD be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall NOT return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11
“In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was GOD.” John 1:1
“And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory; the glory as it were of the only begotten of the FATHER, full of grace and TRUTH.” John 1:14
“But He (JESUS) answered and said, It is written, Man shall NOT live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the Mouth of GOD.” – Matthew 4:4
. . . thank You Gracious Heavenly Father+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
, , , thank You Jesus, Blessed Christ of God+
Comments are closed.