I’ll Never Understand This

25 08 2010
Christopher Hitchens

Image via Wikipedia

Okay, it is time for me, once again, to put on my “naive religious person” hat and wonder why on earth people get offended over the stupidest things.

It has nothing to do with the recent decision to ban cross memorials for fallen state troopers in Utah because it allegedly is Christian proselytization forced on innocent motorists driving down the highway. That was a bit outrageous, and those judges should have their heads examined. The cross isn’t a Mormon symbol, and both the folks who erected the monuments and the troopers to whom the monuments were dedicated were Mormons. The cross has come to mean “grave marker” just as much as it symbolizes Christianity. For more information on that, see the related links below.

No, the subject of this post is one of far greater concern to me. Vjack of Atheist Revolution has written a post decrying prayers being offered for Christopher Hitchens’s recovery from cancer. He discusses why prayer, in this specific case, is offensive, then treats the broader issue of why prayer in general is offensive. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Atheism, God, Personal, Prayers, Religion

The Invention of Religion

23 08 2010
Cults and new religious movements in literatur...

Image via Wikipedia

A new blogger arriving on the scene, badcatholic, imagines himself back in time as a fly on the wall during the invention of religion.

Caveman 1: Bro, these mammoths are frightening, and I don’t know why it rains.
Caveman 2: Yeah, sounds like we need some supernatural explanation for natural phenomena for which we are not yet advanced enough to understand.
Caveman 1: Right. So we’ll need a god…
Caveman 2: Nice.
Caveman 1: And let’s have no adultery with beautiful women…
Caveman 2: Uh-
Caveman 1: And in with the concept of eternal, unimaginable torment-
Caveman 2: Slow down-
Caveman 1: And moral obligations, and no more of this survival of the fittest. We’ll not be able to lie, or steal, or cheat, or mastrubate-
Caveman 2: Are you sure you-
Caveman 1: Or eat too much, or drink too much, or be lazy, or be prideful… (source)

It has always fascinated me that atheists repeatedly assert that religion is a human invention, yet a quick study of religious vices and virtues reveals that we’ve set an impossible standard for ourselves. Religions, not just Christianity, speak of the evils of acquiring and hording material possessions, lust, adultery, pride; and extol an others-centered attitude as well as exhorting adherents to not even think about bad things. Religion asserts that humans are broken and need to be fixed, either through a set of ritual behaviors or by a quickening of the spirit by the hand of God, and those who refuse to comply will face eternal destruction, shame, and humiliation. Who would invent that?

On the other hand, if God is the author of religion, that makes much more sense. A divine being who  stands in judgment of humanity warning us against adultery, lust, and evil thoughts makes more sense than a bunch of primitive humans with no motivation to make monogamy the preferred form of marriage, adultery a grave sin, and forbid masturbation and all forms of lust as the standard of behavior.

If mankind invented religion, I think we’d see a much different picture than we do now.


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Atheism, God, Humor, Religion, Sin, Theology

In Memorum: Clark Pinnock (1937-2010)

18 08 2010

I really hadn’t read much of the work of Clark Pinnock, who was a defender of open theism, but I had always meant to get around to it (and to the work of John Sanders as well). I was familiar with Pinnock through my brief flirtation with open theism when I had first begun apologetics ministry back in 2006, but I was only passingly familiar with him. I know that he was a great thinker, as he pioneered a brand new systematic theology (however misguided that may have been).

His theology may have been wrong, but I think that it was constructed in the spirit of better defining the nature and person of God; trying to tear down some of the mystery surrounding the divine. That’s a noble goal.

His work survives, so I hope to still read some of his books. May he rest in peace, and may he delight in the presence of the God he endeavored to serve.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : God, Open Theism, Personal, Prayers

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Illustrated

15 08 2010

A new believer named Ronni needed some relationship advice, so she did the only logical thing and turned to Pat Robertson.

Robertson is giving a biblical answer for a change. He’s referring to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?  What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

It’s not a blanket prohibition on “hanging out” with unbelievers. How are we supposed to evangelize if we’re not permitted to hang out with unbelievers? The idea of a “yoke” is a rabbinical term referring to various interpretations of the Hebrew bible. A rabbi was said to teach and follow a specific “yoke.” It’s similar in terms to a Christian denomination of today, but not exactly. For example, a rabbi who came up with a new yoke (rather than teaching an existing one) had to have his new yoke blessed by the laying on of hands by two other rabbis.

What “unevenly yoked” means is that a person shouldn’t have a very different set of beliefs than their spouse.

My wife is an Arminian, and I’m a Calvinist. I’ve heard that that doesn’t work very well. But that hasn’t been my experience so far. Calvinists and Arminians agree on the basic premise that faith in Christ alone is what is necessary for salvation, and that is exactly what my wife and I plan on teaching our kids. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is in how the person arrives at saving faith–through God’s action alone (Calvinism) or by God’s response to a free will decision (Armininism).

The real problem for Ronni in the video is that her fiancee is an atheist. It probably isn’t impossible for such a marriage to work, but my concern would be for any future children that the couple would have. How does one decide what religion the children will be raised to believe?

Ronni’s fiancee, as an atheist, probably believes that the Bible is a collection of myths rather than historical facts. He also likely denies the Resurrection (perhaps even the historical person of Jesus). Ronni, as a Christian, is going to want to teach her children about the existence of God and Jesus, that the Bible is a reliable history book, and that Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day to defeat sin and death.

I don’t know many atheists who would want their children to be taught such “nonsense.” In that scenario, mom teaches one thing, then dad undermines it behind mom’s back. The kids are going to be confused.

An additional problem presents itself. The church, as a whole, fails in apologetic instruction. I doubt much that Ronni has any way to counter the arguments that her fiancee will expose the kids to: contradictions in the Bible, Jesus never existed, there is no evidence for God, evolution removes the need for God, and other atheist talking points. The kids, in this scenario, are far more likely to be atheists since the atheist is able to present and defend his reasons for being so, while the Christian is left with “You just have to have faith.”

Unless the fiancee is going to agree to not interfere with the religious upbringing of the children, and if he is going to agree to be supportive of Ronni’s Christian faith, then this might be fine. But I don’t know many atheists who are willing to do such a thing. At least, the impression I get from the commenters on this site.

So, what say you, atheists? Am I wrong? Could you be supportive of your spouse if your spouse was religious and wanted to bring the kids up in that religion?


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Atheism, God, Marriage

Catholic Belief is Unified, Right?

8 08 2010

Catholic apologists have us believe that Catholics are unified on all Christian doctrine and belief. Since the Catholics have the Pope and an infallible Magesterium, they have the full and final revelation of God, and this revelation is based both on Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Patty Bonds, sister of James White (of Alpha & Omega Ministries fame) and author of the blog Abba’s Little Girl, brought up the subject of infants perishing in hell in a recent post. As a former Calvinist, Patty believed that infants who died in infancy would go to heaven if elect, and hell if not.

I had also come to the conclusion that even unborn babies that perished were subject to God’s capricious picking and choosing. . . . So if a child was still born, it was entirely up to God whether that child would die with his sinful human nature and suffer damnation for it or if he would somehow become “regenerate” and be saved. (source)

She’s backed by the Westminster Confession of Faith, by the way:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (X.3)

Many find this idea hard to swallow, and so they hold to something referred to as the “age of accountability.” In this scheme, if a soul is taken from us prior to its ability to hear the call of the Spirit, and so could not have made an informed choice, the soul departs and is with God. In this setup, God won’t hold the soul accountable for sins because the soul doesn’t understand what that means.

In other words, infants dying prior to a certain age (differing based on the individual, but usually between 5 and 7) or the mentally handicapped are always taken to heaven.

It’s warm and fuzzy, isn’t it? But Catholic Steve Ray has some scathing things to say about that:

The Protestant doctrine of the “age of accountability says that babies, young children, mentally retarded, etc. are not accountable for their sins since they are not old enough or capable of commiting moral offence against God. They are therefore not sinners, or at least not held accountable. . . .

The Bible seems to teach that a baby is a sinner (because the Bible says all have sinned, right?) and that “the wages of sin is death”, so if a baby dies, it must go straight to hell. Is there anything that can save them before they are mentally able to understand the Gospel and “accept Christ as their Savior”? Are all children thus given a death sentence for the first decade of their lives? My that seems cruel and heartless, contrary to the love and mercy of God.

It sure is convenient to have the man-made, invented doctrine of the “age of accountability”. This makes some sense of these verses in the Bible. But, what chapter and verse do we turn to as a proof text for this doctrine Jerry? Whre are these words in the Bible? We soon find they don’t exist. Protestants invented them. . . .

There are however, simple solutions to these problems. The [Catholic] Church has resolved the problem; in fact, it never had the problem. (source)

Except that it did have the same problem, and it still does.

Augustine, who the Catholics are always quick to claim as their own, held that infants who died prior to baptism were eternally damned. This is very similar to the Calvinist beliefs blasted both by Patty Bonds and Steve Ray.

Catholics used to believe that infants who died prior to baptism would go to limbo, contrary to Augustine. The issue has been hotly debated, even in Augustine’s time, and no official Catholic position has ever been set down. Instead, limbo is (even today) held as a possible theological conclusion, but is not the only possible conclusion. Since there is no official published Catholic position, individual Catholics are free to believe as their conscience dictates.

So, what’s the advantage to being Catholic again?


Comments : 1 Comment »

Categories : Calvinism, God, Roman Catholicism, Sin, Theology

Because I loved the Commercial. . .

26 07 2010

The commercial reminded me of my brother-in-law. So, even though it makes fun of God, I can’t help myself:

I suppose one could argue that I’m going to hell for blasphemy. Is it wrong for a Christian to find this funny?

HT to Common Sense Atheism


Comments : 3 Comments »

Categories : Atheism, God, Humor

Typical Atheist Arguments

25 07 2010

In my much derided “No Heavyweights of Theology” post, a commenter named Karen Leonard posted the following comment:

It is very difficult to be a “heavyweight” in theology. There is so much mythology, misogyny, racism, sexism, cruel and unusual punishment, mixed messages, and down right nonsense within the bible, that the only people you can address that will sit through your oratory would be those whose minds are so fearful of death that they would believe ANYTHING that gave them hope to the escape the grave.

I was rather nasty in my reply:

Do work really hard at in-the-box-atheist-groupthink, or does it just come naturally?

This prompted commenter Enoch Sherman to stop following my blog, concluding that I don’t encourage rational conversation.

What, exactly, was rational about Ms. Leonard’s comment? NOTHING. Every point she made in that comment has been refuted, either by me or by another apologist. Those charges have stood refuted for years.

I already left these links in the comments, but since Ms. Leonard’s charges are so common, I thought I’d leave them here for your perusal.


Comments : 2 Comments »

Categories : Apologetics, Atheism, Bible Thoughts, Heresy, Jesus, Morality

Idiotic Argument Against Christianity

23 07 2010

A side project that I’m working on, in addition to everything else, is to re-read (in their entirety) the books that are supposed to destroy not only Christianity, but theism in general. I’m creating a site, currently empty except for some cool pictures, where I will post my thoughts and links to the thoughts of others on these “masterworks” of atheism.

I’ve started with Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation, which is the shortest of all of the books. Harris makes a huge error in the opening pages of the book. This mistake might hold the title for the most idiotic argument against Christianity ever purported, and I’ve noticed that other atheists have propagated the error. Like a virus.

Although I will develop the argument more succinctly later, I wanted to take a moment to address it. Neal, a user who commented on John W. Loftus’s reactionary piece to The Infidel Delusion, stated that atheism cannot provide an objective moral standard, but Christianity does. Neal makes a serious philosophical error, though I don’t think he intended to. I think that he intended to suggest that Christianity, as it points to God, provides that as the ground for morals. Atheism isn’t able to posit objective morality, as much as it is synonymous with metaphysical naturalism. If the universe is all there is, then there is no transcendent realm to appeal to when looking for the ideal standard. The ideal standard ought to be, it does not exist in point of fact. “Ought to be” has no meaning in a universe where only the natural exists: nature is what it is.

The first reaction to Neal’s lengthy piece was from Jim, who said:

Neal,

And atheism provides no objective criteria whatsoever. So even here Christianity is superior in that it provides objective foundations for society.

Sorry, Christianity doesn’t provide any objective foundations for society, either, except perhaps purely “within” Christian society.

There seems to be no evidence of any actual absolute objective morality. The universe doesn’t care what Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, or the Inquisition did.

Within human society, we have determined certain “objective measures.” Take the length of the meter, for example. The length of the meter is only as good as HUMANS desire to accept OTHER HUMANS declaration of the standard.

If a group of humans decides to have a different standard for length (the “foot” or “yard”) they are free to come up with their own objective standard for their group. Or they can redefine the length of the “meter” for their own group. What they CAN’T do is redefine the “meter” for a different group.

What Christians have done, allegorically is subjectively decided on the nature of a GOD who decides what the length of the meter is and then claim that they have the ultimate OBJECTIVE foundation for the definition of a meter.

You see what Christians are doing? They are simply using the creative power of their mind to invent something (SUBJECTIVELY) and using that creation as a foundation for OBJECTIVITY.

It’s quicksand . . .

Both Neal and Jim fall into the same trap, propagating the same error that I’m accusing Harris of: Christianity is not the foundation for morals. God is the foundation for morals.

To his credit, Jim corrects himself (kind of) midway through the post, shifting the source of morality back to God. This is the correct view. Christianity is, with qualifications that I won’t get into here, a series of interpretations of the same book. Being subjective in nature, therefore, Christianity cannot provide an objective ground for morality. As such, it is not the source of morals.

Jim, however, makes many serious mistakes. The underlying assumption of his comment is that philosophy and theology cannot provide any objective insight into who God is, and what he would command. That is, philosophy and theology don’t consist of real knowledge, just mere opinion. He also rejects the authority of Scripture, and in all probability, the very existence of special revelation. He also implicitly accepts relativistic morality, which is also false.

I hate it when people say that Christianity is the ground of all morals. That’s patently false. God is the ground of all morals. Christianity is, with some qualifications, subjective and therefore cannot be the ground of morality. God, who is the good, is immutable. Therefore, God is our ground for morals. Atheism cannot account for the existence of the material universe, much less provide a ground for objective moral standards.


Comments : 5 Comments »

Categories : Apologetics, Atheism, Atheist Books, God, Heresy, Morality, Religion, Theology

Object Lesson in Why Some Hate Calvinism, part II

20 07 2010

Mike from the blog Finding Bliss has objected to Calvinism. He says, “I find it spiritually abusive,” calls it “reckless [sic] doctrine”

In my previous post, I showed that Mike isn’t objecting to Calvinism proper. In that vein, I will answer some of the objections he then comes up with in the latter section of his post, most of which can be defused by appealing to what Calvinism actually teaches, not what Mike thinks it teaches. First objection:

How many nights have people laid awake at night questioning whether or not God chose them first? Or if like me you first believed and then you fell then that could very well mean that I was never truly saved in the first place. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Apologetics, Bible Thoughts, Calvinism, Father, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Sin, Theology

Object Lesson in Why Some Hate Calvinism, part I

19 07 2010

Mike of the Finding Bliss blog demonstrates why some people hate Calvinism. They hate a strawman caricature of it, and they don’t understand what the five points really teach. This is why I plan to make my musings on the topics of the five points of Calvinism available as an e-book.

Let’s look at what Mike got right, and what he got wrong. Mike writes, “I’ve attempted to present the 5 points as a Calvinist might present them which is not easy to do, I don’t agree with it and what’s worse I find it spiritually abusive.” It’s important to note that Mike is attempting to present these points accurately. He failed in a few places. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 3 Comments »

Categories : Bible Thoughts, Calvinism, Father, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Sin, Theology

« Previous Entries