It doesn’t take long to think of a Biblical example of an intractable negotiation between leaders of nations. Anyone could pick out the clash between Moses and Pharaoh as a prime illustration. Our repeated showdowns over the debt ceiling draw strong parallels which can lead us to wisdom and away from foolish political theater. Unfortunately, not many come to the invective war in internet comment sections armed with real facts. So let’s start there, shall we?
It’s absurd to think that some people make a conscious choice to suffer in eternal torment rather than experience the glory of Heaven. Evangelists hardly even ask whether people want to go to Heaven. Most assume everyone wants to be there and instead start with the question: “Do you think you will go to Heaven when you die?” Yet, there are people in this world who hate God to such a degree they would rather spend eternity in Hell than worship the Almighty.
-Daniel 2 (604 B.C.)
Editor’s Note: The following is a guest post by a student in Spain. His contribution is a true blessing. If you have an interest in graphic design or data visualization and would like to contribute to this blog, please contact me.
The Book of Daniel, which many call the Old Testament’s Revelation, develops the story of certain captive Jews in Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon’s court. The six first chapters narrate Daniel’s historical experience there.[i] The others are visions and prophecies. Nevertheless, the vision we illustrate here is situated on the second chapter, because it was originally revealed to Nebuchadnezzar one night, in one of his dreams.
Imagine someone walking up to a stranger and saying: “Hi, my name is Robert and I’d like to share with you the good news.” The stranger replies: “No, thanks. I don’t want to hear anything about Jesus today.” The evangelist replies: “Oh, no! I wasn’t talking about Jesus …I wanted to tell you about he new iPhone.” In our consumerist society, this scenario is not all that hard to imagine. In many cities it is more culturally acceptable to be an evangelist for Microsoft, Google, Apple, or Adobe than it is to evangelize the true Gospel.
I can recall two experiences, both of which occurred in a single afternoon, which taught me more about handling tough situations than anything else I remember. It was during an Air Force training exercise in Japan. The scenario was to repair a damaged runway so (make-believe) fighter jets could land. My job was to keep track of what was happening and give updates to our commander while being interrupted by threats of chemical attacks, insurgent strikes, and whatever else the training group could invent to make things more difficult.
For one of my half-hourly updates, I changed the completion time estimate by a large margin. Our commander immediately called to chew me out for being inconsistent, wishy-washy. How could he trust my promise if I didn’t even trust myself? A lot of pretend dollars and missions were at stake. If we were off by even 30 seconds, the fictitious planes couldn’t land and we would fail the training exercise. It was the only time other than at the Air Force Academy I was severely scolded by a superior officer. Lesson learned: consistency builds trust.
Later in the afternoon, things got more intense. We had planes that needed to land within the hour – damaged, low on fuel – either they were going to land safely or crash when they hit an incomplete or sub-par repair. The commander called me again: “Can we land these planes in time?” In this scenario, the fighters were expected to arrive within a minute or two of my estimate. We had no room for error. None. I told him yes, we’ll get it done. After I hung up the phone, the highest-ranking sergeant muttered: “That’s balls.”
The well-seasoned folks within earshot had done this many times before. I was barely 22 years old. They knew the consequences we’d face if I was wrong. Our ability to get this right in training reflected our ability to get it right for real on our upcoming deployment to Iraq. They also knew how much work was left. If we hadn’t compacted the soil enough, gotten it smooth enough, secured the matting well enough…bad things could happen. If my “yes” turned out to be wrong, that earlier rebuke from the commander wouldn’t be the one I remembered. The next one would be far worse.
I didn’t say we could do it because I was a cocky Academy grad (which I was back then). I didn’t say it because I was scared of telling my boss “no.” I did it because I knew the guys out there could hustle and do it right the first time, on time. I trusted their experience, ability, and motivation. I was right. They got it done. The planes landed (on paper) as scheduled and the practice repair met all standards. The guys I was with that day treated me a little differently from then on. Lesson two: confidence earns respect.
These are very basic things you learn in Leadership 101. I am reminded of those lessons often as I see more and more failures of leadership in our country. It may be a President voicing inconsistent foreign policy, a corporate executive who won’t make a decision for fear of personal ruin, or a father sitting on the couch while his family is in spiritual decline. Yet, hope remains for a better day.
I have confidence that our trials are temporary because I believe in a God who is eternally consistent. He keeps his promises. He is worthy not just of respect but of worship. He has more than earned trust; his character demands complete faith.
This is the perspective I hope to keep in focus as our sin-cursed world “groans and travails” in ever-increasing frequency (Rom 8:22) until God fulfills his promise to restore creation to its original perfection (Rev 21-22). Remember that when you see wars breaking out in the Middle east, corrupt executives shoved into federal prison, or endure the daily struggles of a dysfunctional family. Man’s leadership often fails. God’s lordship never will.
Scientists routinely study people’s behavior as part of humanity’s quest to better understand ourselves and our universe. Christian theologians use the Bible as their guide while traveling along that same quest. Since the scientific community has a higher percentage of atheists and agnostics than the general population, they approach studies of humanity with a strikingly different worldview from Christians. So, what happens when scientists and theologians try to go about understanding each other?
A recent article on PhysOrg, “God as a drug: The rise of American megachurches“, presents a study on the rise of American Megachurches. Unlike many such studies on religious subjects, it is not an attack piece. It does, of course, ignore God’s role in conversion and largely attributes the growth to sensory and emotional experiences – no surprise there. From the article:
As part of their study, Wellman, Corcoran, and Stockly-Meyerdirk analyzed 470 interviews and about 16,000 surveys on megachurch members’ emotional experiences with their churches. Four themes emerged: salvation/spirituality, acceptance/belonging, admiration for and guidance from the leader, and morality and purpose through service.
Our modern perception of science is that it is an objective search for truth, but we often forget that science is conducted by people. Those people are subject to the same influences and biases as everyone else. While the application of certain methods can reduce the error caused by human imperfections, we cannot deny that paradigms, axioms, and presuppositions heavily influence the world of scientists.
To illustrate this, Creation-Evolution Headlines rewrote the PhysOrg article as though a theologian had conducted a study on the growth of Darwinism. The result of this fictional study is a strikingly accurate description of how many Darwinian “evangelists” view their role. Consider the same paragraph, above, re-imagined from the opposite perspective:
As part of their study, Weller, Corky, and Stocky analyzed 470 interviews and about 16,000 surveys on society members’ emotional experiences with the conferences. Four themes emerged: materialism/scientism, conformity/unity, admiration for and desire for acceptance from peers, and a sense of duty to fight creationism in public outreach.
Both articles are a good read, so check them out. Do you agree that scientists can be influenced by each other in ways that affect their conclusions? How do you think this shapes the narrative of “religion vs. science?” Leave a comment below.
After absorbing over 50 hours of apologetics lectures and debates on topics as simple as an overview of Genesis and as minute as cave formation in New Mexico, my friend and I had an idea. We seriously considered condensing the information in our vast, overpriced DVD library into a series of short video clips to deliver the key points in a way that would be more engaging to our generation and easy to share online.
We never got past the first script, but I am happy to report that several ministries with superior skills and funding have had the same idea in recent years. Answers in Genesis now has Check This Out, The Institute for Creation Research produces That’s a Fact, and Creation Today has my personal favorite: Creation Minute. These video series focus on foundational issues surrounding science and the Bible, but what about the other important questions of life?
Now, Mark Spence of Living Waters teaches on these broader topics in a series of apologetics videos taken from the Way of the Master TV Show. I was blown away by the quality of not only the teaching but also the production that goes with it. Unlike those old lectures, these videos get right to the heart of some of the most-asked questions about Christianity or religious beliefs in general. Everyone has time to watch three minutes (or less) of non-stop, hard-hitting apologetics on the questions that matter most.
You can watch all 10 videos below or click a link to jump to a specific clip.
As atheists grow bolder in the absence of such boldness from christian leaders in the Western world, we have begun to find new terms to describe this group. Typically, we call them the “New Atheists” – ones who do not simply lack belief in God, but actively assert that God does not exist and “evangelize” their worldview. Now, I have found a better word proposed by Robin Schumacher, a blogger for the Christian Post. He proposes the term “Hatetheist” to describe those who cannot help but espouse their hatred (not just disagreement) with theism, especially of the Christian variety.
Schumacher raises a number of points that resonate with me (and I suspect most who engage in any debates with atheists), such as:
…atheists keep Christians honest where our apologetics are concerned, and they are helpful in showcasing what the philosophy of naturalism espouses and where it logically leads. Although we disagree on theological matters, I’ve found atheists to be respectful, intelligent, and understanding in many of our discussions. They have thought through their positions, present them in a well-organized manner, and are happy to consider contrary positions and opposing arguments to their stance.
In contrast, he says, “discussing theology with hatetheists is an exercise in futility.” He lays out 8 points describing what sets the hatetheist apart from other atheists. Below is my attempt to boil down his comparisons for simplicity.
| Atheist | Hatetheist |
| Respectful | Name-caller |
| Uses names “God”, “Jesus” | “Invisible sky fairy”, “Jewish zombie” |
| Recognizes intellectual equality | Believe they have superior intellect |
| Considers and addresses arguments | Uses red herrings, dodges questions |
| Recognizes limits of science | Adheres to scientism |
| Universally critiques all gods | Focuses on God of Christianity |
| Promotes freedom of religion | Promotes freedom from religion |
| Does not see Christianity as a threat | Fights against threat of Christianity |
These distinctions are important because they can help discern how best to respond or approach an unbeliever. While it may be a good idea to continually engage with an atheist for evangelism or other discussion, Schumacher warns against such continued interaction with hatetheists. He gives a number of scriptural examples for this conclusion, which is summed up with a quote from Richard Weaver’s book, Ideas Have Consequences:
“Nothing good can come if the will is wrong. And to give evidence to him who loves not the truth is to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.”
If you often engage with atheists online, I would strongly recommend reading his entire post. Do you agree that we should sometimes disengage with an unbeliever, or is it always advisable to keep the dialogue going?
“93% of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are atheists,” boasts the social media proselytizer who is now all but certain he has presented inarguable evidence that rational, thinking people are drawn away from theism. It comes from a survey conducted in 1996 and published in the journal Nature. I have seen this statistic often enough that I decided to dig into it a bit further. It is now clearer than ever that this survey is an example of selection bias and further supports the assertion that the NAS is intolerant.
Right from the start, the 93% number is a little misleading. 72% disbelieve in God while 23% express doubt or agnosticism. Atheists routinely lump in agnostics in figures like this if it is to their advantage, but agnostics often describe themselves that way to separate their views from their understanding of atheism. But, this may be little more than semantics.
What if we looked at a different group of scientists? When surveyed in 2009, a slight majority (51%) or respondents from the American Association for the Advancement of Science expressed belief in God (or a “higher power”) and 41% indicated disbelief. It turns out this survey matches rather closely with a survey done 100 years ago, even showing a slight increase in theism among the scientists polled.
Still a different group, university professors, end up somewhere in the middle of these figures. A 2010 survey found 34% were atheists, 30% agnostic, and 27% expressed some level of belief in God.
So far it’s clear that while scientists are far more likely than the general population to be atheist, the 93% figure is simply not an accurate representation of scientists as a whole. Now, let’s extend the data even further.
In academia, the consequences for your conclusion being wrong is a retraction from an academic journal, a scathing peer review, or wider public scrutiny. In other environments, the cost of being wrong are people’s very lives. Certainly few people think that doctors work with anything other than an evidence-based evaluation and decision-making process. If they were to do otherwise, they face severe civil or criminal penalties while their patient suffers physically to varying degrees. Physicians must rely on science when it really counts.
Are these rational-minded professionals also inclined to be atheists? Not quite. As of 2005, 76% expressed belief in God. While this is still lower than the general population, it turns out that doctors are actually more likely to attend religious services – 90% of them vs. only 81% of Americans as a whole. If we were to accept that the majority opinion of an evidence-based profession proves that thinking people should accept their view, we may hold this up as a persuasive argument for converting to theism. I do not recommend that approach for the reasons explained throughout this article.
What might explain these differences in beliefs across a range of scientists? As an engineer who also relies heavily on facts to form conclusions, I prefer not to speculate too far without doing more extensive research. Allow me to offer two possible causes to consider: indoctrination and culture. American universities are now breeding grounds for anti-religious minds. Over time our culture has trended the same direction, and the sub-culture in academic circles is likely to influence the distribution of religious beliefs in that group.
In earlier times, higher institutes of learning we’re built by Christians and Western society was far more deeply committed to biblical truth. Indeed, the greatest scientific minds who pioneered most of the major branches of science were theists. This fact alone indicates that theistic belief is no detriment to the advancement of scientific inquiry, if not the very basis for science itself.
When we consider the full range of data and look at it objectively, we find every good reason to reject the “majority of scientists are atheists” argument so often presented. The wide disparity among different groups of scientists also shows that they are human like everyone else, subject to the same influences and pressures that shape our ideas about the world. This is why we must always look to a higher standard than ourselves. Let us trust instead in the words of an all-knowing being, not in the wisdom of men with limited knowledge or understanding (1 Cor 2:5).
Christianity is too judgmental, too strict. We must drop such dogma if we are to live as free people in a just society. You have heard this said before. You may have thought it yourself. This impression is false and easily disproved by a simple comparison of the words in the Bible vs. the collection of documents that define United States law.
Suddenly the Bible does not seem to be such an oppressive rule book after all, especially when considering this chart does not account for many federal regulations, state laws, city ordinances, etc. Some point to the dietary laws penned by Moses as an example of invasive restrictions on personal freedom. This seems to be a reasonable argument until you look at Title 21 of the U.S. Code which governs food and drugs. It has 699,440 words. Moses only managed to write 174,733 words in the Bible during his entire 120 years on Earth! The FDA certainly has a lot more “thou shalt nots” limiting dietary freedom than God ever passed down to the Jews.
The same holds true for many other aspects of our lives from the time we brush our teeth to driving to and from work to watching TV at night. All of these activities are regulated, monitored, and controlled to one degree or another by one or more federal agencies somewhere along the line.
Before going further, we would be wise to understand the reasons that we write laws to begin with. Consider the words of Frederick Bastiat in his masterful book, The Law:
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place…Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.
[amazon asin=1440446458&template=iframe image] Those things which we have a natural right to defend are those which originate from our Creator. Therefore, the words God has spoken to us in the Bible should be the foundation of our laws which protect those gifts. Then, how do we end up with so many statutes which extend far beyond this intent? Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:8, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” When we step away from the biblical basis of natural law, we begin to use it improperly. The law fails when we turn its intent toward what Bastiat describes as “stupid greed and false philanthropy.”
We have attempted to force “false philanthropy” upon our society through legal plunder – the use of force to deny a person’s right to their property. As evidence, the longest section of the U.S. Code is the one dealing with health and welfare. It is over 8 million words which makes it longer than the entire tax code and associated regulations combined. Surely it is noble to take care of the needy and sickly, but it is unjust to forcibly confiscate someone else’s money to do so. Religion accomplishes the same task through genuine charity which is not given out of duty, obligation, or force (2 Cor 9:7). In this and many other ways, the Christian worldview is the antidote (not the source) of injustice or oppression.
When preachers step forward to explain these principles and call us to adhere to God’s standards, some will object that it’s too legalistic. But, the same folks will not cry “legalism!” when the IRS comes to enforce tax laws which are three and a half times the size of scripture. It might be easy to jest at this hypocrisy, but it raises a useful point. Is it reasonable to expect anyone to fully comply with a set of laws so voluminous we can’t even manage to read them let alone understand and follow them to the letter? Certainly not, and here the faithful critic of legalism is correct to point out our utter inability to live a sinless life (Rom 3:12).
If we fail to follow every rule and regulation codified in U.S. law, we may experience little or no consequence. Even if we are to commit the most heinous of crimes, our sentence may only be the death of our earthly bodies. In contrast, God administers eternal and infinitely more severe consequences for breaking just one of his commandments. This may be one reason that biblical guidelines are seen as less forgiving than federal laws.
While more and more people are beginning to fear our government, our deeper fear is of the one who can destroy both our body and soul in Hell (Matt 10:28). The natural desire is to ignore or deny this existence of Hell, hoping it will squash our fear. Why would God set up such severe punishment? Does he hate us? No. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son (John 3:16) to pay the debt we owe so we won’t have to suffer this awful fate.
This is how a righteous judge can also offer us the kind of liberty and peace that can be found nowhere else but in the salvation of Jesus Christ. When we approach God in repentance and ask forgiveness, it is freely granted. Ask the same of Homeland Security when you forget to leave a pocket knife in the car at the airport and you’ll find out just how “forgiving” our government can be.
It is time to recognize that when we look to God’s instructions we can be free; when we pile regulations on top of laws built on the wrong foundation, we are crushed under the weight of government power. If we are to find freedom, let us heed the words in Galatians 5:1:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
“Godless liberal socialists” clearly differ from “religious right-wingers” on the subject of war. The evangelical voting base of the Republican Party finds this so important that even the most fiscally responsible constitutionalist is marginalized as the “crazy uncle” due mostly to his non-interventionist foreign policy. Author Michael Snow argues against our stereotypical politics in Christian Pacifism: Fruit of the Narrow Way showing from a personal, historical, and theological perspective that the biblical position is far from hawkish as we’d assume in this era of preemptive war.
Snow connects with readers early on with his personal story about serving as a Marine with a dream of becoming a pilot. He ultimately washed out from causes out of his control, perhaps an answer to his prayer: “Lord, don’t let me get so caught up in flying that I forget about people.” His descriptions of training echo my own from the Air Force Academy, most notably when describing the level of mistrust displayed toward soon-to-be decision-makers.
One stand-out event was the Kent State shooting which took place the year he graduated college and entered the military. During pilot training, his commanding officer referred to the incident and made it clear to the class they may someday fly missions against similar “revolutionaries.” Snow vividly illustrates other experiences which shaped his move toward pacifism, each of which were at odds with the Christian concept of a loving attitude toward fellow men and women.
From here, he sets the foundation for his basic argument: that God’s universal love is at odds with the dehumanizing effects of war. Snow summarizes this beautifully in his counter-argument for “humanitarian” war:
Here, I believe, is a key to Christian discussion about warfare: abstractions take precedence over concern for individual human lives. When such priorities govern us, a dreadful condition prevails. We cry, “We will save you!”, sanctify ourselves, and commence a mission of destruction.
The abstractions he discusses include arguments very similar to Edmund Burke’s well-known quote:
The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.
Snow rightly points out that we are quick to turn to militaristic options for fighting said evil versus more loving means such as humanitarian aid, though he is not clear on how such aid could be carried out in countries ruled by oppressive dictators.
The author does not limit his persuasion tactics to emotional appeal and anecdotes alone. He tackles the ingrained yet mistaken assumption that God’s protection of Israel and battle directives in the Old Testament amount to an endorsement of war. He points out facts from these stories that are often forgotten, such as when God prohibits David from building the temple due to his bloodshed (1 Chron 28:2-3). Or, consider Deut 1:21-46 which recounts Israel’s disobedience to God’s command not to take up arms in possessing the land of Canaan. They were driven out, destined for 40 years in the wilderness and threats of war on their people from then on.
The New Testament lends itself more obviously to a “turn the other cheek” perspective. Pro-war theologians do find some passages which appear to support their case which Snow dismisses perhaps too quickly. Jesus’ praise for the Roman Centurion’s faith absent a rebuke of his profession, his command in Luke 22:36 to buy a sword, and his statement in Matthew 10:34 that the Messiah comes not to bring peace, but a sword are notable examples. Still, Snow finds thorough support elsewhere for pacifist principles which more than balance out his relatively thin treatment of the above arguments.
Mr. Snow introduced me to his book by way of a blog post on the Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession, which reads (in part):
The worldlings are armed with steel and iron, but the Christians are armed with the armor of God, with truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and the Word of God.
This shows that at least as far back as 1527 when the Swiss Brethren Conference adopted this confession that Christians took exception to serving in a military capacity. Snow’s book adds to this history by surveying The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, writings by church fathers Athenagorus and Tertullian, and A Short History of Christianity – all of which clearly indicate Christian resistance to taking up the sword.
One distinction this book does not treat adequately is the difference between offensive and defensive war. This might be excused since prior to the initial publication in 1981 of Christian Pacifism, America was a stranger to the doctrine of preemptive military operations, better described as wars of aggression. The 30th anniversary edition does not correct this inadequacy, however.
It is an important distinction to make since early Christian theological heavyweights find no conflict with waging war on a limited, well-justified basis. Typical criteria include a measured response to provocation, reasonable chance of success, ensuring war is an absolute last resort, and guidance on the conduct and treatment of combatants. Unlike the author, I am not fully convinced that all war is at odds with the Bible unless one can show from Scripture that Aquinas, et. al. are wrong on these points.
Even so, as every war which America has waged in recent history has clearly violated these criteria, it may make no difference whether we argue against all war (as this book does) or simply “unjust” war. The final analysis puts proper theology at odds with our country’s actions either way.
The author is clearly influenced by Quakers but does not spend time on any doctrinal distinctions. Snow frequently proposes we feed the hungry with the resources we put toward fighting battles, but does not expound the theological root of this thinking outside of loving our fellow humans. Some Quakers preach that we are currently in the Millennium and have a responsibility toward social justice; others look toward a future fulfillment of prophecy through the bodily resurrection of Saints and the Second Coming of Christ.
It is this Second Coming which culminates the war to end all wars at the Battle of Armageddon. Whether or not Christians choose serve in a military capacity or show support foreign wars between now and then, we will certainly fight alongside our Lord Jesus Christ to finally vanquish Satan and the forces of evil in this world.
Anyone with even a passing interest in history should take a look at Adam’s Synchronological Chart or Map of History.
He based this detailed chart on the work of Archbishop James Ussher’s Annals of the World which itself is an icon of Christian historical research. I am glad to see it has not faded into the darkness of an old, dusty library. Instead, New Leaf publishing has reproduced it and introduces the work in this video:
If you don’t already own a full timeline of history, this is the one to add to your library. For the “try before you buy” folks, you can download a teeny-tiny version of it as a PDF to get a flavor for it. (Note: I’m not paid by any publisher, I just happen to really love this book!)
The Iraq war is now officially declared to be over. Lately we have heard war drums beat louder and louder on tensions with Iran and the international oil supply that comes through the Strait of Hormuz. These events compel me as a veteran of the Iraq war, a Christian, and concerned citizen to voice my perspective.
Our approach with Iran should be to remind them of why they should fear us far more often than we remind them why they hate us. A show of force is not the only way to show strength. Often a clear message of our unity and resolve as a nation can go a lot further. In America, the single message that unifies even the most diametrically opposed political elements is the idea of liberty. Radical jihadists need to only to incite enough fear that we will choose to sacrifice that liberty for the sake of security.
Two of the biggest reasons I agree with Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul’s foreign policy should also explain why he enjoys the financial support of more military members than all other Republican candidates combined. First, he will not risk losing the lives of some of our brightest, most skilled young men and women unless and until Americans display the resolve necessary to guarantee a swift and decisive victory through a declaration of war. Second, our Constitution and way of life face a greater threat from within than from any of our enemies abroad. Our President, Judiciary, and Legislature more routinely and effectively erode our freedoms than Iran’s nuclear programs or lack thereof.
But, this isn’t just some political position or a rally for my favorite candidate. It goes far beyond any election. This foreign policy is based in nothing less than the eternal words of God Almighty. Congressman Ron Paul expanded on this biblical argument at the 2011 Values Voter Summit (and went on to win their straw poll):
Let us also not forget that conflicts in the Middle East are as much a spiritual battle as they are socioeconomic frustrations. We can wage such a war much more effectively with the Sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17) than we can with bullets and bombs. My prayer for our country, our world, and our leaders is the same as Paul’s prayer to the Romans:
Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. -Rom. 15:33
As the call for action against Iran reaches a crescendo, it is wise to examine the history of this conflict. Instead of reminding everyone why we should fear Iran, let’s remember that they have reason to fear us, too. We must never commit the lives of our best young men and women unless it is absolutely necessary and morally justified.
As the world population approaches 7 Billion, we’ll hear a crescendo of cries for population control measures including (but not limited to) easier access to abortion. A serious analysis shows that the population is not out of control.
7 Billion People: What Population Control Advocates Don’t Say | LifeNews.com.