Praise the Lord for small mercies...

It was just announded that Michael Finley is signing with the San Antonio Spurs.

Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

So now that means that,

Duncan
Ginobili
Parker
Finley
Van Exel
Bowen
Barry
and Horry

are all on one team.

This shoult make our (yes I said our) title defense more interesting. Although the new look Kings and Rockets look good too. Can't wait for the 2005-2006 NBA season to start.

Go Spurs Go! Sweet news...

Book excerpt: The Screwtape Letters with Screwtape proposes a toast

My dear Wormwood,

So you ‘have great hopes that the patient’s religious phase is dying away’, have you? I always thought the Training College had gone to pieces since they put old Slubglob at the head of it, and now I am sure. Has no one ever told you about the law of Undulation?

Humans are amphibians – half spirit and half animal, (The Enemy’s determination to produce such a revolting hybrid was one of the things that determined Our Father to withdraw his support from Him.) As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time. This means that while their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are in continual change, for to be in time means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy, therefore is undulation – the repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks. If you had watched your patient carefully you would have seen this undulation in every department of his life – his interest in work, his affection for his friends, his physical appetites, all go up and down. As long as he lives on earth periods of emotional and bodily richness and liveliness will alternate with periods of numbness and poverty. The dryness and dullness through which your patient is now going are not, as you fondly suppose, your workmanship; they are merely a natural phenomenon which will do us no good unless you make good use if it.

To decide what the best use of it is, you must ask what use the Enemy wants to make of it, and then do the opposite. Now it may surprise you to learn that in His efforts to get permanent possession of a soul, He relies on the troughs even more than on the peaks; some of His special favourites have gone through longer and deeper troughs than anyone else. The reason is this. To us a human is primarily food; our aim is the absorption of its will into ours, the increase of our own area of selfhood at its expense. But the obedience which the Enemy demands of men is quite a different thing. One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfectly freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself – creatures whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct.

Buy this book as part of the 6 by Lewis box set here...

I'm tired...

Physically, mentally and spiritually. Yet I place my hope in Jesus Christ, and Him crucified because the Apostle Paul wrote, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:8-9).

“Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).

The Holy Scriptures are so powerful. They cannot be broken and the very words in them spoken by Jesus can cleanse us. Blessed be His Holy name. Come even now Lord Jesus, come…

Weed is the "wisdom" plant?

According to the article at Wikipedia on Rastafarianism, “Haile Selassie visited Jamaica on April 21, 1966. Somewhere between one and two hundred thousand Rastafarians from all over Jamaica descended on Kingston airport having heard that the man whom they considered to be God was coming to visit them. They waited at the airport smoking lots of cannabis and playing drums.” How can you demonize the same book from which you find a “confirmation” of the man you believe to be God-incarnate. Perhaps this is where the problem lies, “they waited at the airport smoking lots of cannabis.” Of course, since “Babylon system is a fraud” (never mind we buy and sell from within the same system), they will consider it [weed], illegal. The article goes on, “They are not surprised that it is illegal, seeing it as a powerful substance that opens people’s minds to the truth – something the Babylon system, they reason, clearly does not want. They contrast their herb to liquor, which they feel makes people stupid, and is not a part of African culture.”

But it is reported that some of the negative side effects of weed are, “paranoia, dry mouth, respiratory problems and nervousness/racing heart. Other effects may be negative or inconvenient in certain settings or situations including reduced ability to concentrate, impaired memory, tiredness, and confusion.” Paranoia? Reduced ability to concentrate? I rest my case.

Let the truth be told

“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39)

Permit me to respond to the question posed by Mr. David Gittens: “What is the truth?” I can’t help but wonder though. Is this the same David Gittens, who wrote earlier exhorting the public to “look to the more germane words of Jesus” on the matter of homosexuality? Then the same David Gittens, I’m assuming, returns to the public square to convince us that, “the words placed in Jesus’ mouth, as given in the Gospels, are a work of imagination and invention by those who had an agenda”. So, on one hand we are to believe His words are “the work of imagination and invention”, yet, we must still look to these same “imaginary” words on a crucial matter pertaining to human sexuality? Perhaps the fictional work, namely The Da Vinci Code, has clouded your thinking.

Now Satan knows full well that the Holy Scripture requires little thought to be perverted, but to set the record straight, requires much prayer, thought and detailed explanation. Therefore, since space will never permit in this forum, I will refer you to three articles to help with you with your conundrum. First, visit www.bible.com/bible/Bstudy.html and read the article, “How To Study the Bible: Principles of Interpretation.” Then, visit www.apologetics.com, search for and read the article, “Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable”. And finally, visit www.xenos.org, search for and read the article, “The Problem of Apparent Chronological Contradictions in the Synoptics.” Should you bother to read these articles, keep the following in mind: Matthew was written for the Jews, Mark was written for the Romans, Luke was written for the gentiles and John was written for believers. To what then shall we compare the kingdom of heaven to? “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it” (Matthew 13:45-46). Life, a fascinating subject indeed.

Coming next: A response to Mr. David Gittens

"The devil ... the prowde spirite ... cannot endure to be mocked" - Thomas More [quotation from The Screwtape Letters]

A letter from Mr. David Gittens recently appeared in the Daily Nation, who sides with S. Victor Evelyn. Is this the same David Gittens who was at a Bible study class sometime back and wrote a detailed explanation of one of Jesus' parable? The same David Gittens who earlier hinted that we should look to the more germane words of Jesus on the matter of homosexuality? Pray tell, how can one suggest to look to Jesus' words and then months later claim that they are the figment of men's imagination? What a twit. But as they say "Only a boy named David..." Of course though, Christians must sit back, like the pious sheep we are though to be, and take the assault on the Holy Scriptures. I think not. And that is why I write.

The Church's catch-22

The 21st century church finds herself in a pretty pickle. Let me explain. Let us say: A, B, C, D and E represent all immorality and sin. If the church speaks out on A and B alone the world cries, “Why are they only speaking about A and B. They are so hypocritical. What about C, D and E?” Ok, fine. The church now speaks out about A, B, C, D and E. The tune quickly changes to, “They think that they are better than everybody else. Don’t listen to the vocal minority!” Yet, if the church “speaks out about nothing” (if one could do such a thing), you will eventually hear: “The church has lost touch with the people. They need to get out in the highways and the by-ways.” Now if eternal matters were not at stake, this would be amusing. But as it stands, it is not. Jesus explains why the world does not listen: “The one who belongs to God listens to the words of God. The reason you do not listen is because you do not belong to God” (John 8:47). The one whose Spirit rests heavily upon me is truthful, and what I have heard from Him I declare to the world. A word to the wise. And we are wise readers now, aren’t we?

Racism reloaded: reparations for slavery

Reparations for slavery, has to be the biggest piece of hogwash, save evolution. Reparations are usually done on the basis of some sort of justice. I am astounded by the “justice” that says: black person A is wronged by white person B, therefore hundreds of years later, white person C has to give money to black person D. Whilst we are at it, let us totally ignore the fact that some blacks were involved in the trading their “fellow” blacks. Listen, the individuals who have harmed and who were harmed are long dead: get over it. After receiving reparations, what next? Do we then agitate for the legalization of weed so we can all “light up de chalice”? Perhaps though I’ve been brain-washed by seeing too many pictures of “the white Jesus” (whoever that is).

The ‘hate crime’ of the 21st century: spreading the gospel

Whilst “religious tolerance” might look noble on paper, when the rubber meets the road, the wheels come tumbling off. Case in point is the article titled, African Crossroads: Spirituality vs. Religion, which appeared in the press recently. The author puts on the hat of “religious tolerance” whilst simultaneously demonizing The Bible and the Christian faith. The author writes, “The Old Testament is replete with commands to slaughter all the people of another faith – all in the name of God.” This particular attack on Christendom has become almost nauseating. Visit http://www.comereason.org/, search for, and read the article, Is the God of the Old Testament Different From the God of the New? Readers can draw their own conclusions. The author goes on, “God Him/Her Self has not yet appeared to us face to face to confirm whose opinion is right!” This is a lie, for God has appeared to us in the form of Jesus Christ. In John 8:58 we read, “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” “I am” was the most divine name of God in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14). The Greek pronoun for “I” is translated “ego”. The Greek verb for “am” is translated “eimi.” “Eimi” means to be, to exist eternally or to have timeless being. So taken together, “ego eimi” would mean “I exist eternally” or “I have a timeless being”. One of the greatest Greek scholars, Dr. A.T. Robertson, said this about John 8:58, “after translating it [I am], Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God.” So Dr. Tafari, the Lord Jesus asks, “but whom say ye that I am?” (Matthew 16:15).

Proponents of “religious tolerance”, by default, imply that Jesus and by extension Christianity is lying. This in turn makes them intolerant of the Christian faith, nullifying their “religious tolerance”. The Lord Jesus sends the author this message, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Isaiah 1:18). But of course since “as wool” implies white, the Bible promotes Euro-centric domination over the black man, right? Exactly the kind of reasoning we’d expect from someone who considers Emile Durkheim a “great sociologist”. The same Emile Durkheim, who argued that fundamental categories of space, time, number and causality were social in origin. Please explain how time and space can be social in origin? Come now, let us reason together saith the Lord.

Do interest rates perpetuate global poverty?

“God opposes usury and greed, yet no one realizes this because it is not simple murder and robbery. Rather, usury is a more diverse, insatiable murder and robbery" – Martin Luther

Haven’t you ever wondered how modern economies have gotten into this position? I think we would only be wasting time debating which “ism”: socialism, capitalism, collectivism et cetera, is best. Capitalism – like it or lump it – is here to stay. But having said that, was it wise to have ignored the advice given to us by the ancient philosophers and spiritual leaders? What do Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Aquinas, and Moses have in common? They all forbade the lending of money at interest, usury , as they called it. Of course, this lending of money at interest rates, is the foundation of our modern economic system. We call it a good investment. John Calvin defended interest charges, helping to set up the development of capitalism in northern Europe. But after looking at the Quarterly External Debt Database, developed jointly by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), I can’t help but wonder. For those interested in definitions, external debt is defined by the IMF as, “the outstanding amount of those actual current, and not contingent, liabilities that require payment(s) of principal and/or interest by the debtor at some point(s) in the future and that are owed to nonresidents by residents of an economy” (whatever that means).

Visit the database and check the Gross External Debt Position of the G8: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States of America and Russia. Now if seven of the world’s leading industrialized nations and Russia owe so much money. What hope is there for a place like Indonesia, where the total external debt represents 80% of their national income? Does having a juggernaut for an economy, automatically mean incurring an exorbitant level of debt? What developing country can repay such debt and still fund educational, health or other important social programmes? Maybe Anup Shah, the author at global issues does have a point. Or, maybe we should have listened to Aristotle, Moses and the Christian leaders of the Middle Ages. But, as I alluded to earlier, I write as a layman in economic matters, just asking questions. What do the trained economists make of all this?

Talk is cheap

Someone commented that we have become a “nation of talkers” and I quite agree. This though should come as no surprise because of the following. One, the cost of living in Barbados is extremely high. Two, word on the street is: talk is cheap. Therefore, it stands to reason that we are bound to become a, “nation of talkers”. Is there anything else we can afford to become?

Reason is not a god

German philosopher Immanuel Kant challenged us in his 1784 essay, “What is Enlightenment?”, with, Sapere Aude! [Dare to know!]. He wrote, “have the courage to use your own intelligence! Is therefore the motto of the enlightenment”. He goes on, “The public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men.” Unfortunately, this erroneous view of reason has trickled down from the enlightenment period. A period where men were convinced that they were emerging from centuries of darkness and ignorance into a new age enlightened by reason, science, and a respect for humanity. People whose minds are still trapped in this era, consciously or unconsciously, mislead the public into thinking that reason and logic alone are the primary sources of knowledge and truth. Reason and logic are glorified as mini-gods to whom we must look to in order to solve the problems of mankind. If your mind is still trapped in the 18th century: please wake up. In the context of discovering Truth, reason is not something that can enlighten; it is something we do: big difference. This is the more reasonable view: It is only because God lends us the tiniest drop of his reasoning powers that we are able to think at all. Similarly, it is only because He loves us infinitely, that we are able to love others. God is the ultimate principle, not reason, therefore we should look to Him for enlightenment. We should look to the one who said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is true enlightenment. You would only, I think, be deceiving yourself, if you believe otherwise.

Athiesm is too simple

“The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn” – Martin Luther

God’s non-existence cannot be proven outright. To state that God does not exist, would require one to possess infinite knowledge, which is impossible. If someone does in fact possess infinite knowledge, let them come forth and show it. It stands to reason therefore, that what we call atheism is, strictly speaking, a retreat to agnosticism, whose basic tenet of faith is this: no one can really know whether or not God exists. A more reasonable position for humans with finite minds. Since atheism cannot support its own presuppositions, it hides this deficiency by shifting the burden of proof, choosing instead to attack religious doctrines. Perhaps though, this is so the scripture could be fulfilled, “…but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:21). The problem with atheism and agnosticism is not lack of evidence. The problem is the willful suppression of that evidence. For the apostle writes in Romans 1:20, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”. C.S. Lewis succinctly summarized atheism when he said, “Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.” I would encourage atheistic thinkers to visit http://www.apologetics.com, download and read carefully, a free copy of the book titled, Faith with reason: Why Christianity is true, by Joseph R. Farinaccio.

Towards a theocracy?

Contrary to what some would have us believe, Christendom is not interested in setting up a theocracy. Jesus made it abundantly clear in John 18:36, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here.” Christianity, not to be confused with Christianity-and-water (the watered down Gospel) is most interested in the souls of men and women, not world domination. The liberal left seems to think, “Run for the hills, the religious right is making a power grab”, when Christian ideas are expressed in the public square. Rest assured, we do not want a theocracy. A fair and just society will do.

All "Bible contradictions" are lies

I side with Charles Spurgeon who said, “I would far father have a person be an earnest, intense opposer of the Gospel than to have him be careless and indifferent.” The “challenge” put forward by a recent writer is common amongst those who set out to destroy Christianity. They put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack. To the writer who issued the “challenge”, the Lord Jesus sends you this message, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36). The writer asked persons to read Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20. Then conveniently adds, also Acts 1:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. If we are speaking chronologically we cannot skip mindlessly from the Gospels and Acts to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Unless of course, we are lying by omission. If we read the events as they occurred from Matthew 28 to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, omitting nothing, the correct sequence is this: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20-21. Then Acts 1-14, James, Acts 15-16, Galatians 1-6, Acts 17-18:18, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Acts 18:19-19:41, then 1 Corinthians 1-16. By omitting John 21, then citing Acts 1:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, out of their chronological context, it seems as though Paul is contradicting the Gospels with respect to the appearances after the resurrection. Interested persons should read the correct sequence, then draw their own conclusions. The Scriptures cannot be broken, which also means, no fault can be found with them. This is according to Jesus in John 10:35. Therefore, unless we are implying that Jesus is a liar, the Bible is infallible. I would invite persons to read, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A harmony of the resurrection accounts”. A bit of advice to the writer, keep your money. Next time, research and try to think, before putting “pen to paper”.

The contemplation of Christ

Most people are familiar with the famous statement, Cogito, ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am”, made by René Descartes. A short, but profound statement. For even when we are doubting everything, we are still thinking. Therefore the surest thing we can know is the existence of the thinking subject. And since thought is a spiritual activity, he had proved the existence of the human spirit. It was from this postulate that Descartes, a devout Catholic, set about arguing for the existence of God. Can there be anything more worthwhile than such contemplation? It seems, that there is not. Man can master the natural sciences, the arts and other disciplines. We go away after a period of study with a sense of self content, often thinking, “Behold, I am wise”. Not so with the contemplation of Christ. No subject of contemplation can so humble the human mind, than thoughts of Christ. Yet, even though it humbles the mind, it also expands it. As Charles Spurgeon said, “He who often thinks of God, will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods around this narrow globe.” One who thinks they are educated, cultured and sophisticated, yet has never given so much as a passing thought to Christ, and Him crucified; is a fool. They could say of themselves, “I am but of yesterday, and know nothing.” It is most profitable for the human mind to often contemplate on the one who said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” It was Augustine who said, “The greatest happiness is for the mind to attain God.” The Philosopher, namely Aristotle, also agrees with this idea in the final book of the Ethics, where he says, that man’s ultimate happiness is speculative, that is, speculation bearing on the most noble of knowable objects, namely God. Most importantly, it is confirmed in Scripture. For it is written in John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Think on these things.

Bono book excerpt: Grace over karma

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled… . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …

Protecting yourself online

As more economies continue to be driven by information, success will not be defined by who has the highest net worth. Rather, success will largely depend on how well individuals and companies use, manage and protect their information, both offline and online. Consumers should be aware of the dangers present in the online world: viruses, privacy threats, hackers and so on. There are tools, in addition to antivirus software, that users should install to minimize potential online threats and the information trail that often accompanies online transactions. You can visit the Home PC Firewall Guide at, http://www.firewallguide.com, for a list of software in categories such as anti-spyware, anti-phishing and personal firewalls. You should have a tool or combination of tools, which you regularly update, that protects you from various threats.

When consumers provide information to an organization they expect that the information collected will be used solely for the purpose of providing the service requested. Unfortunately, current practices, in both the offline and online world, has long shattered this expectation of privacy. Information generated during transactions are often used without the consumer’s knowledge or consent for a variety of other purposes. Some companies even go as far as to insist that the information consumers provide them with is now “company property”. There are several examples where companies use and disclose personal information for purposes well beyond what the individual intended. If we do not take active measures to protect our personal information, we could have just as well left a bag of cash on the ground. That is how information should be thought of in the 21st century, as currency.

The Internet presents this generation with unique opportunities as well as challenges. As the Director of Information at Coca Cola said, “We have got to get people to recognize, from an awareness perspective, what the dangers of the online world are.” If people fail to recognize these dangers, they will never become responsible users of information with any degree of competence. That in itself would be devastating to any economy where information is increasingly becoming one of the greatest assets. Second only to its people of course.

Jesus is the only way

A writer recently commented, “You cannot be 100% right about what you believe, because you are not God, you are not divine. You are simply a fallible human…”. Now assuming the writer believes their own statement, that statement itself, made by a fallible human, might not be 100% right. So, why should anyone believe it? Whilst it is true that, to err is human, it does not logically follow that humans always err. Humans can be 100% right about faith related matters. Faith is not the complete absence of reason. So, is “religious tolerance” (whatever that means) a noble virtue? In John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He used the word ‘the’, definite article. He did not say, “one of the truths” or “one of the ways”. If religious pluralism were true, for Jesus to make such a claim, He would have to be either a liar or a narrow-minded Jew. But this is certainly not the case, is it? Christianity, not to be confused with Christianity-and-water (watered down Gospel), makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is the only way. Some may find it strange, or offensive, the claim that there is only one correct religious worldview. This is because of the conventional view that religious relativism is correct and is the way all educated, tolerant and cultured people think. Unfortunately, the conventional view often serves to protect people from the painful job of thinking. People are relativists in one way by being absolutist and dogmatic in another – generally towards things they dislike. People need to be loved more than they need to be tolerated. If you love someone, you tell them the truth. The truth is in Acts 4:12, where it says, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” What’s that name? Jesus, of course. Saved from what? Well, that is another story.