Monthly Archives: July 2009
I’m pro-choice. Abortions should be legal, safe and rare. It is simply a milestone of a civilized, modern society. I keep hoping someday that America will be just that. [Atheist posting as zunedita373 at Proud Atheists]
You know that you live in a culture that has lost its fear of God when you read a comment like that one. The brutal murder of an unborn child is called a “milestone of a civilized, modern society.”
As I had suspected, a vast majority of the atheist respondents to the poll posted by Proud Atheists are pro-choice. As Lorena, another commenter, says:
I think many atheists are pro-choice because, once the fear of hell is removed, it makes sense that a woman should have the right to not bring an unwanted child to this world.
I’ve posted before on the fear of hell–I don’t think that Christians should fear hell. After all, Jesus has died for our sins: past, present, and future. Hell is a concern of the unbelieving, not the believing. So fear of hell is not the reason that we should be pro-life.
Even after removing the fear of hell, it still doesn’t follow that a woman has any “right” over another human being’s life, even if that life is disrupting her day-to-day activities. Applied to its limit, this would essentially give any human being the right to terminate the life of anyone who adversely affected him. I don’t think that this is where we really want to be.
It should be noted that most atheists do not believe that life begins at conception, and Lorena is probably among them. Theists tend to share the opinion that life begins at conception, but the Bible is silent about such matters so it is difficult to have a definitive answer. I believe in erring on the side of caution–that is why I firmly believe that life begins at conception. That, and simple logic: a single fertilized cell (zygote) is capable of performing all the necessary functions of life.
There is one alternative to abortion that should be explored: adoption. It amuses me that this option is often never even considered by most atheists when the pro-life/pro-choice debate comes up. The few times I’ve seen it, it is usually thrown aside by the atheist for various reasons, usually centered around the potential for the child to seek out the mother later in life. Abortion, in the atheist’s twisted reasoning, is the only sure way to prevent having to revisit old wounds like a rape or an incest.
That said, there are many couples out there who would love to have a child, even if said child were the product of a rape or incest; especially if the child was the product of teenage imprudence; or if the child were severely deformed or retarded.
Consider the number of unwanted pregnancies in the United States. Now consider the number of couples who are having difficulty adopting because of lack of babies being given up for adoption. It’s almost as if God chooses to bless odd unions with a child just so the adoption industry can find this child a home. Adoption seems to be the logical, God-honoring solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies.
It isn’t the fear of hell that should keep us seeking God’s will. It is the desire to please God. In the Ten Commandments, God commands us to not murder. It seems pretty straightforward, if you accept that life begins at conception, that God doesn’t want us to end the life of these precious babies. Especially when there are alternatives such as adoption. It pleases God when we obey him, especially if we sacrifice our own comfort for that obedience.
This post from Proud Atheists demonstrates, once again, that our culture has lost its fear of God. It isn’t hell that keeps us in line, it should be the desire to please God and to live out his will for our lives. But this culture wants to do its own thing, apart from God. This society is in love with its sin, and that will be its ultimate downfall.
Proud Atheists have an interesting post about masturbation. It illustrates that people who are in open defiance of the Lord often misunderstand things to their own destruction.
Before we find out why, we need a truly Biblical perspective on masturbation. For that, let’s look at the Got Questions website’s take on masturbation here. The writers basically agree with my own perspective–masturbation is not a sin, but is often the result of sinful activities. Lustful thoughts, pornography, or anything else that leads to masturbation is what should be dealt with, not masturbation itself.
So let’s just say that masturbation is conduct unbecoming of the Christian and leave it at that. We can argue that any conduct unbecoming of a Christian is sin another time. Masturbation is best left between God and the individual.
That said, it alarms me the number of commenters in the thread who are proud of the fact that they masturbate. They are taking a private matter and making it public knowledge. And they are proud of the fact that they are doing it.
Masturbation, as outlined above, is likely the symptom of a deeper problem. It is this problem that must be dealt with, whether it be lust or pornorgraphy, or something else. Masturbation isn’t the issue that God has in view when he discusses human sexuality; it is those other things that he wants us to abstain from. If those things are dealt with, then suddenly masturbation is no longer a problem.
So if we assume that masturbation is the result of a deeper pathology, then what we have, again, is an example of a culture that has lost its fear of God. People who do not want God to define the rules of human sexuality. These are people who think that they know better than our creator what is for our own good. Masturbation is a sign of sexual sin, and these people are trumpeting from the rooftops that they are involved in it. Not only involved in it, but proud of their involvement.
Total depravity at its finest.
I read James White’s take on this, but I had to read the article for myself to actually believe it. Our culture has lost its fear of God. The result? Defacing the Bible and calling it “modern art.”
This is sad but very symbolic of a culture that is slowly declining into moral relativism and secularism.
I saw an advertisement for this website in the corner of Facebook, and I have to wonder what the atheists are going to think of it once news of it starts to spread.
Most likely, they are going to mock it. They are going to tout it as proof that Christians want to be exclusive in their dealings, or want special privileges.
Personally, I have two problems with it. Yes, that’s right: I have a problem with this. First, we are supposed to be in the world, but not of the world. If we are to share the gospel, we need to deal with people who are both in and of the world. That means we shouldn’t exclusively deal with other Christians. This website is encouraging doing just that.
Now, that isn’t to say that we shouldn’t patronize Christian businesses, or that it is never a good idea to want to do that. Sometimes, we need to talk to our fellow Christians. For example, if you are looking for a counselor or a psychologist, a Christian probably would want to talk to a fellow Christian. In that case, a website like this can be a great tool.
Second, the website declares that any profits will be tithed according to Scripture. According to Scripture, you give to God first, not last. Profits are what you arrive at once all your bills are paid. They are giving God the bottom 10%, not the top 10%. This might be picky (or even hypocritical on my part), but I still have a problem with it. They are not, in fact, tithing according to Scripture.
That said, I probably will use the site to advertise my business if I ever get one together. It only costs $75 per year, which is a reasonable price for that type of exposure. And I think that this website will really start to take off once more businesses sign up for it.
I’ve been told that my answer to the final “proof” of God is Imaginary (here) is a non-answer because it involves personal experience. But, the WWGHA forums (the owners of the site God is Imaginary) have touted this post as proof positive that God is imaginary.
The problem? The post involves someone’s personal experience. How can that post be considered evidence for anything? If my answer is a nonanswer, then this post means nothing.
On the other hand, why should the man’s experience have led him to atheism? Why does he decry God for waiting to answer his prayer? The story makes it clear: God answered his prayer in an unexpected way, it just wasn’t soon enough.
This is par for the course for anyone who believes the crap on WWGHA and GII. God is only allowed to answer prayers in a specific box-like, automaton fashion and they must be answered immediately. And, moreover, God is not allowed to use intermediaries–the answer must miraculously drop out of the sky to be considered a bona fide answer to prayer.
The real reason this man is an atheist? He’s mad at God for waiting. I pray he gets over it.