Eight Steps to Proving The Existence of God

Posted by Dan C. on

Step One: Laws of Logic

The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.

Step Two: Laws of Mathematics

The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.

Step Three: Laws of Science

Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.

Step Four: Absolute Moral Laws

I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws ‘prescribe’ how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.

Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.

Step Five: The Nature of Laws (a)

If you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist,we need to examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they ‘abstract’ entities? – are they physical or non-physical things?

Step Six: The Nature of Laws (b)

If you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not made of matter, do you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?

Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)

If you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not made of matter, and that they are universal, the next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.

To get to this point you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God’s existence and those who suppress the truth of God’s existence. The options of ‘seeking’ God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

Romans 1 vs. 18 – 21 says:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore…

Step Eight

Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.

Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

This type of logical proof deals with ‘transcendentals’ or ‘necessary starting points,’ and the proof is called a ‘transcendental proof.’ Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him. Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality.

Source

Christian Values Cannot Save Anyone

Posted by Dan C. on

Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Al Mohler

A recent letter to columnist Carolyn Hax of The Washington Post seemed straightforward enough. “I am a stay-at-home mother of four who has tried to raise my family under the same strong Christian values that I grew up with,” the woman writes. “Therefore I was shocked when my oldest daughter, ‘Emily,’ suddenly announced she had ‘given up believing in God’ and decided to ‘come out’ as an atheist.”

The idea of a 16-year-old atheist in the house would be enough to alarm any Christian parent, and rightly so. The thought that a secular advice columnist for The Washington Post might be the source of help seems very odd, but desperation can surely lead a parent to seek help almost anywhere.

You usually get what you expect from an advice columnist like this — therapeutic counsel based in a secular worldview and a deep commitment to personal autonomy. Carolyn Hax responds to this mother with an admonition to respect the integrity of her daughter’s declaration of non-belief. She adds, “Parents can and should teach their beliefs and values, but when a would-be disciple stops believing, it’s not a ‘decision’ or ‘choice’ to ‘reject’ church or family or tradition or virtue or whatever else has hitched a cultural ride with faith.”

Related Posts

That is patent nonsense, of course. Declarations of adolescent unbelief often are exactly what Hax argues they are not: rejections of “church or family or tradition or virtue.” Hax does offer some legitimate insights, suggesting that honesty is to be preferred to dishonesty and that such adolescent statements are often indications of a phase of intellectual questioning or just trying on a personality for style.

Hax then tells this distraught mother that she “didn’t throw out what my childhood, including my church, taught me; I still apply what I believe in. I just apply it to a secular life.” In other words, Hax asserts that she maintains many of the values she learned as a child in church, and simply applies these values now to a secular life.

“How can I help my daughter see that she is making a serious mistake with her life if she chooses to reject her God and her faith?,” the mother asks. Hax tells the mother to accept the daughter’s atheism and get over her “disappointment that she isn’t turning out just as you envisioned.”

What else would you expect a secular columnist who operates from a secular worldview to say?

The real problem does not lie with Carolyn Hax’s answer, however, but with the mother’s question. The problem appears at the onset, when the mother states that she has “tried to raise my family under the same strong Christian values that I grew up with.”

Christian values are the problem. Hell will be filled with people who were avidly committed to Christian values. Christian values cannot save anyone and never will. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a Christian value, and a comfortability with Christian values can blind sinners to their need for the gospel.

This one sentence may not accurately communicate this mother’s understanding, but it appears to be perfectly consistent with the larger context of her question and the source of the advice she sought.

Parents who raise their children with nothing more than Christian values should not be surprised when their children abandon those values. If the child or young person does not have a firm commitment to Christ and to the truth of the Christian faith, values will have no binding authority, and we should not expect that they would. Most of our neighbors have some commitment to Christian values, but what they desperately need is salvation from their sins. This does not come by Christian values, no matter how fervently held. Salvation comes only by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Human beings are natural-born moralists, and moralism is the most potent of all the false gospels. The language of “values” is the language of moralism and cultural Protestantism — what the Germans called Kulturprotestantismus. This is the religion that produces cultural Christians, and cultural Christianity soon dissipates into atheism, agnosticism, and other forms of non-belief. Cultural Christianity is the great denomination of moralism, and far too many church folk fail to recognize that their own religion is only cultural Christianity — not the genuine Christian faith.

The language of values is all that remains when the substance of belief disappears. Tragically, many churches seem to perpetuate their existence by values, long after they abandon the faith.

We should not pray for Christian morality to disappear or for Christian values to evaporate. We should not pray to live in Sodom or in Vanity Fair. But a culture marked even by Christian values is in desperate need of evangelism, and that evangelism requires the knowledge that Christian values and the gospel of Jesus Christ are not the same thing.

I pray that this young woman and her mother find common hope and confidence in the salvation that comes only through Christ — not by Christian values. Otherwise, we are facing far more than a young woman “making a serious mistake with her life.” We are talking about what matters for eternity. Christian values cannot save anyone.

Share

Christian Character and Good Argument

Posted by Dan C. on

Good Arguments First and foremost we need to avoid the ubiquitous ad hominem (“to/concerning the person”) variety—otherwise known as “personal attacks.” Poor papers often focus on the person: both the critic and the one being criticized. This is easier, of course, because one only has to express one’s own opinions and reflections. A good paper will tell us more about the issues in the debate than about the debaters. (This of course does not rule out relevant biographical information on figures we’re engaging that is deemed essential to the argument.)

Closely related are red-herring arguments: poisoning the well, where you discredit a position at the outset (a pre-emptive strike), or creating a straw man (caricature) that can be easily demolished. “Barth was a liberal,” “Roman Catholics do not believe that salvation is by grace,” “Luther said terrible things about Jews and Calvin approved the burning of Servetus—so how could you possibly take seriously anything they say?” It’s an easy way of dismissing views that may be true even though those who taught them may have said or done other things that are reprehensible.  Closely related is the genetic fallacy, which requires merely that one trace an argument or position back to its source in order to discount it. Simply to trace a view to its origin—as Roman Catholic, Arminian, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist/Baptist, etc.—is not to offer an argument for or against it. For example, we all believe in the Trinity; it’s not wrong because it’s also held by Roman Catholics. “Barth studied under Harnack and Herrmann, so we should already consider his doctrine of revelation suspect.” This assertion does not take into account the fact that Barth was reacting sharply against his liberal mentors and displays no effort to actually read, understand, and engage the primary or secondary sources.

Closely related to these fallacies is the all too familiar slippery slope argument. “Barth’s doctrine of revelation leads to atheism” or “Arminianism leads to Pelagianism” or “Calvinism leads to fatalism” would be examples. Even if one’s conclusion is correct, the argument has to be made, not merely asserted. The fact is, we often miss crucial moves that people make that are perfectly consistent with their thinking and do not lead to the extreme conclusions we attribute to them—not to mention the inconsistencies that all of us indulge. Honesty requires that you engage the positions that peopleactually hold, not conclusions you think they should hold if they are consistent.

If you’re going to make a logical argument that certain premises lead to a certain conclusion, then you need to make the case and must also be careful to clarify whether the interlocutor either did make that move or did not but (logically) should have.

Another closely related fallacy here is sweeping generalization. Until recently, it was common for historians to try to explain an entire system by identifying a “central dogma.” For example, Lutherans deduce everything from the central dogma of justification; Calvinists, from predestination and the sovereignty of God. Serious scholars who have actually studied these sources point out that these sweeping generalizations don’t have any foundation. However, sweeping generalizations are so common precisely because they make our job easier. We can embrace or dismiss positions easily without actually having to examine them closely. Usually, this means that a paper will be more “heat” than “light”: substituting emotional assertion for well-researched and logical argumentation.

“Karl Barth’s doctrine of revelation is anti-scriptural and anti-Christian” is another sweeping generalization. If I were to task you in person why you think Barth’s view of revelation is “anti-scriptural anti-Christian,” you might answer, “Well, I think that he draws too sharp a contrast between the Word of God and Scripture—and that this undermines a credible doctrine of revelation.” “Good,” I reply, “—now why do you think he makes that move?” “I think it’s because he identifies the ‘Word of God’ with God’s essence and therefore regards any direct identification with a creaturely medium (like the Bible) as a form of idolatry. It’s part of his ‘veiling-unveiling’ dialectic.” OK, now we’re closer to a real thesis—something like, “Because Barth interprets revelation as nothing less than God’s essence (actualistically conceived), he draws a sharp contrast between Scripture and revelation.” A good argument for something like that will allow the reader to draw conclusions instead of strong-arming the reader with the force of your own personality.

Also avoid the fallacy of begging the question. For example, question-begging is evident in the thesis statement: “Baptists exclude from the covenant those whom Christ has welcomed.” After all, you’re assuming your conclusion without defending it. Baptists don’t believe that children of believers are included in the covenant of grace. That’s the very reason why they do not baptize them. You need an argument.

The above is excerpted from a blog post at The White Horse Inn by Michael Horton

Posted by Dan C. on

Hauss's avatarMy Corner Soapbox

Defense is proper and necessary because in every age historic Christianity will be under attack. Defense does not mean being on the defensive. One must not be embarrassed about the use of the word defense. The proponents of any position who are alive to their own generation must give a sufficient answer for it when questions are raised about it. Thus, the word defense is not used here in a negative sense, because in any conversation, in any communication which is really dialogue, answers must be given to objections raised. Such answers are necessary in the first place for myself as a Christian if I am going to maintain my intellectual integrity, and if I am to keep united my personal, devotional and intellectual life.
Francis Schaeffer

View original post

Posted by Dan C. on

Hauss's avatarMy Corner Soapbox

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.
Martin Luther

View original post

The sovereignty of God in the salvation of men. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

. . .according to scripture:

“No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44).

And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father” (John 6:65).

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).

And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul (Acts 16:14).

For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen (Romans 11:34-36).

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD” (1 Corinthians 1:30-31).

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:2).

“You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask of the Father in My name, He may give to you” (John 15:16).

Ours is not to argue or fuss about the clear declarations in the above passages, but to study them, discover what they mean and humbly submit to the wondrous truths found therein. 

Share

Jesus: Sovereign or Failure?

Posted by Dan C. on

Jesus: Sovereign or Failure?

Larry Brown

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32 KJV)

Countless modern churchmen and theologians easily declare that Jesus failed in his mission because, they say, He did not do everything he set out to do. From the failed God of Sun Myung Moon to the dumbed down God of the Open Theists, many seem to be attempting to avoid dealing with a God who says what He will do and does what He says. To make matters even worse, church members have listened to an easy to believe, convenient, watered down gospel for so long that most are not now willing to hear the truth of what the Bible says about our Sovereign God.

When Jesus declared, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” He was stating a wonderful truth but he was not stating the obvious as far as the English translation of scripture is concerned.

What you believe this verse means will reveal to a great extent what you think of Jesus. There are a number of decisions that one must make when interpreting this passage that, when understood, will determine the depth of your appreciation for our Lord. It is not enough to take the easy and sentimental approach to exegeting this passage because your conclusions will reveal the kind of God you serve.

What are the questions we must raise in considering this verse?

1. What does “draw” mean?  Most people seem to have a rather romantic notion about the meaning of this word. They want to use it as we use the term to say that two were “drawn” to each other, i.e., that there is a sort of magnetism there which attracts people to Him but the Bible knows nothing of that. To the contrary it teaches that the world hates and despises Him – holds him in low esteem. There is no beauty about him that we should behold Him. He is rejected of men (Isa. 53:2-4) . Many think of the term as if the Lord is wooing people to Himself as a suitor woos his intended. But that cannot be the way Jesus intended for this word to be interpreted. Did you ever go to a well and attempt to woo a bucket of water from the well? That would keep a person thirsty for a long time. The root of the word translated “draw,” both here and in John 6:44 is a word that means, “to drag.” The same word is used in John 21:6 where “he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.”

Dragging a bucket of water from a well makes sense to me, but I don’t think I could woo one up. It is certain that no one is ever drawn to the Lord “kicking and screaming”, but most assuredly meant here that those he drawswill come. Not some of them, not most of them but all of them.

2. What did Jesus mean by the term “all men”?  It should at first be noted that the word men is not in the manuscripts from which the scripture was interpreted but was supplied by the KJV translators as it was in several other English versions of the New Testament. Others translated it all things. At least one translation has it all my friends. The meaning of the term “all men” is unclear if you consider only the words presented in the texts.

One would think that the term “all men” should mean that Jesus meant to draw one hundred percent of all people to Himself. Now one who has faith in the One who healed the sick, raised the dead, and resurrected Himself from the grave should be able to say without reservation that Jesus did not mean in any literal sense that He intended to bring one hundred percent of all people to himself. The simple fact is that had Jesus meant to bring one hundred percent of all people to Himself, He would certainly have done it. Isa 59:1

There are some conclusions that must be drawn from this discourse. When the Lord determines to draw us to Himself, He is not trying in some romantic sort of way to gain our permission to become part of our lives. The relationship between God and the Elect is not one of courtship. He is neither trying to win us over nor to wear us down in order to accomplish His purpose in our lives. God does not influence our lives after the manner of men. He does not need to do so. He is God. When God decides to draw a person to Himself, that person will come. Not kicking and screaming as I stated previously but he will come with a heart full of gratitude for the revelation of God Himself. The song of one so drawn shall ever be, “Amazing grace! How sweet the sound That saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see.”

The second conclusion is this. If you believe that Jesus meant that after His crucifixion that He would draw one hundred percent of all men to Himself you have to accept one of two positions. You must either accept the position of the Universalist, that is, you believe that all people everywhere are or will be saved or else you have to say that Jesus has failed because He clearly had not done what He said He would do. All people have not come to Him and it is clear that all men will not come to Him. There is no middle ground. The instant you accept as fact the idea that Jesus meant that one hundred percent of all men would come to Him, you box yourself into the corner of having to accept one of these two positions.

There is another choice. To be realistic and consistent with the scripture we must either limit the quality of what Jesus has done or we must limit the scope of what Jesus meant. I, for one, will hold to God’s promise of Isa. 55:11. “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.” What God says He will do, He will do. Since His word will accomplish that which He pleases, we must believe that He intended something other than one hundred percent of all men when He said, “I will draw all men.” The context is always a great aid in understanding the meaning of a passage. In John 12:20-21 we read “And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.” Considering this as the context then, we might well say that the “all” which Jesus would draw unto Himself would be “all people” or “all nations.” In that context no one would dare call Jesus a failure. But Jesus may be thinking in even a broader context here. Seven times in John 17, He speaks of “those whom thou hast given me.” These certainly will all come to Christ. There can be no doubt. He will draw them and they will come. Those of us who are numbered in that number should always rejoice that He chose us for salvation and we should always work toward getting all that the Lord will call into the Kingdom. To God be the glory forever. Amen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Larry W. Brown is Pastor of New Liberty Baptist Church
Morgantown, KY 42261

 

What Is This Power?

Posted by Dan C. on

And what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead.

Ephesians 1:19-20

Truth For Life - Cleveland, OH

The resurrection of Christ, and our salvation, was brought about by nothing less than divine power. What will we say of those who think that conversion is accomplished by the free will of man and is due to his own kindly disposition? When we begin to see the dead rise from the grave by their own power, then may we expect to see ungodly sinners turning to Christ by their own endeavors. It is not the word preached, nor the word read in itself; all quickening power proceeds from the Holy Spirit.

This power was irresistible. All the soldiers and the high priests could not keep the body of Christ in the tomb; death itself could not hold Jesus in its grip: Just as irresistible is the power displayed in the believer when he is raised to newness of life. No sin, no corruption, no devils in hell nor sinners on earth can resist the hand of God’s grace when it intends to convert a man. If God omnipotently says, “You shall,” man will not say, “I shall not.” Notice that the power that raised Christ from the dead was glorious. It reflected honor upon God and caused dismay in the hosts of evil. So there is great glory to God in the conversion of every sinner.

It was everlasting power. “Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.”1 So we, being raised from the dead, do not go back to our dead works or to our old corruptions, but we live to God. “Because I live, you also will live.”2 “For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.”3 “Just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”4 Finally, in the text note the union of the new life to Jesus. The same power that raised the Head works life in the members. What a blessing to be quickened together with Christ!

1Romans 6:9 2John 14:19 3Colossians 3:3 4Romans 6:4

Share

Pakistani Christians Worry About ‘the Next Rimsha’

Posted by Dan C. on

clip_image002LAHORE, Pakistan, Sept. 3 (Open Doors News) — Nabil was out pretending to wash his father’s car, as an evening breeze cut through Pakistan’s monsoon humidity. Together with his father and a Christian neighbor, they had made their way out of the house late last week on this everyday pretext. In reality, they were trying to prevent their Muslim neighbors and the women in their families from overhearing or worrying over their conversation.

As he wiped the car, Nabil spoke in hushed tones to their friend from two blocks away and his father, a pastor in Lahore. Nabil had come home to spend the summer with his family. Naturally, the topic was Rimsha Masih, the young Islamabad Christian girl arrested Aug. 16 after Muslim neighbors told police she was carrying burned pages of Quranic texts.

Because of the vulnerability of Christians in Pakistan, especially when questioning the country’s blasphemy law, Open Doors News is not publishing his real name.

"I live and work in the Middle East, so I am able to send my children to school here in Pakistan," Nabil said. "But I am seriously thinking of coming back now. What happens if my little Zari becomes the next Rimsha, or my wife the next Aasiya [Bibi, the first woman sentenced under Pakistan’s blasphemy law]? What good is school, if she will only graduate into prison?”

Nabil’s conversation echoed questions being raised across Pakistan. He said there is little that will change in terms of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy law.

"God’s word has told us that there will be trials and tribulations, and that there will be persecution for Christians,” he told the neighbor, who questioned how Pakistani Christians could have any hope for a future.

"That is our future before we go to heaven. Either we accept that difficulty will come, or we pretend we have the right to something outside of the Word of God. Let us just seek His grace and hope.”

The conversation continued in low tones. All three were afraid their voices might carry to the neighbors. Nabil’s family lives on the second floor of a home that belongs to a Muslim landlord who lives directly below them. He is always concerned that his children will say something to cause them to be falsely accused of blaspheming against the prophet Mohammad, the Quran or Islam.

The story of Rimsha has shaken Christian families across Pakistan, and has re-ignited national debate on the blasphemy law. Immediately after Rimsha’s arrest, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari warned against misuse of the law. The Sept. 2 arrest of a Muslim cleric on suspicion of placing the religious texts into the girl’s possession has elevated tensions to a high pitch.

"President Zardari has finally spoken! Thank goodness someone came to the rescue, although it seems a meager and useless attempt,” the neighbor said with some skepticism, because Rimsha’s ordeal follows three particularly devastating cases.

After being falsely accused and arrested in June 2009, Aasiya Bibi became the first woman in Pakistan sentenced to death under the blasphemy law. She has been languishing in a Pakistani prison and solitary confinement ever since. Her controversial case prompted criticism of the blasphemy law from Punjab Governor Salman Taseer and Federal Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, who were subsequently assassinated. Threats also have been leveled at Sherry Rehman, the Pakistan Ambassador to the United States.

c. 2012 Open Doors News. Used with permission.

Publication date: September 4, 2012