Category Archives: Apologetics
Vjack Uses a Refuted Argument… AGAIN!
One of the complaints that I have about atheists is that the don’t pay attention to what the other side says. Vjack has proven, once again, that this is so here.
Vjack, of Atheist Revolution, argued in 2005 that the Bible requires that Christians kill unbelievers. Four years later, he has reposted the same trash, even though I refuted it here.
First, Vjack has misrepresented his proof text. Deuteronomy 17 was written to the Jews of the nation of ancient Israel–a nation which no longer exists. Therefore, the text is no longer in effect. Even it it were, the text says that if there is an unbeliever among you, that is, a Jew, that he is to be put to death. Vjack is reading into the text a general command to kill unbelievers, which is not there. But there’s another problem.
Deuteronomy is part of the Mosaic Law, which Christians are not bound to. Christ is the end of the law for believers (Rom 10:4), and the Law exists only for instruction (Rom 15:4). Remember that the letter of the law kills, but the Spirit brings life (2 Cor 3:6).
Jesus taught in the Great Commission that we are supposed to evangelize unbelievers, not kill them (Mt 28:19). Paul says that we are supposed to live at peace with everyone (Rom 12:17). It seems that Vjack is mistaken.
I have a feeling that no matter how many times I refute this point, Vjack will still bring it up. So I guess I’m wasting my time.
Reader Question
An atheist writes:
The reasoning you present here could be used to defend an evil God.
So, if I say “God is evil”, I could point out at all the bad things that happen in the World.
You could then say that in the World there are actually a lot of good things happening, too.
At this point, using your very argument, I could reply that God works in mysterious ways, he deceives us, but his ultimate goal is always our suffering and misery.Assuming that God exists, can you make a case for Him being good that cannot also be used for Him to being evil?
Mind you, if you just add another unproved assumption, such as “I have Faith that God is good”, you allow anyone to state “I have faith that God is evil” and act according to such horrible belief.This is quite a practical problem, because “I have faith that God is evil” is not too far from “I have faith that God is good” provided that “good” means “wants me to kill the unbelievers”.
What if God gave us the Bible to test our rationality and skeptical thinking, and will reward only those that do NOT BELIEVE in Him?
Can you exclude this, or prove that it is less probable than Him sending to Heaven only the believers?
He works in mysterious ways, after all.
See also this post.
The comment boils down to two important questions. The first one is, How do I know that God is good? The second one is, How do I know that what he presented in the Bible is true? Because the second question has been asked, I will have difficulties in using Scripture to answer the questions. I must instead turn to natural theology.
Before I do that, I think that it is really important to mention that Scripture confirms all throughout that God is good, and that his promises are trustworthy. The problem that our atheist friend wants me to address, however, rejects the authority of Scripture outright. Therefore, I cannot simply point to Scripture and say, “Look at verses like Psalm 100:5, 34:8; Nahum 1:7; 2 Peter 1:3; or Matthew 19:17!”
The Bible is the Word of God (2 Tim 3:16-17), and God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the promises of Scripture are true. According to Scripture, God is good and his promises are trustworthy.
But what do I say to someone who rejects the authority of Scripture? Obviously, quoting Scripture won’t work. Instead, we look to natural theology to prove that God is good. After we look at that, we can then move into using fulfilled prophecy to prove that Scripture is trustworthy. Finally, we can arrive at a conclusion from Scripture that God is good and his promises are trustworthy.
But is all of that necessary? See, I’m dealing with an atheist. I can only assume a postmodern, naturalistic worldview. Postmodern viewpoint assumes that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Naturalism precludes the possibility of miraculous fulfillment of prophecy. So already, because of my respondent’s worldview, I’m starting the count at 0-2.
Scripture claims absolute truth, which assaults the sensibilities of the postmodern mind. In the mind of the naturalist, fulfillment of prophecy is a coincidence rather than a miracle. Miracles are simply not yet explained by science; so attributing them to God is fallacious in the mind of the postmodern naturalist.
My best weapons are moot to the mind of the postmodern naturalist, and I can do nothing to alter my respondent’s worldview by clever argumentation. Therefore, my entire response to his question will be an exercise in futility. So unless I hear that my commenter is sincerely willing to learn something about theistic views, I will leave this essay for another time. Perhaps it will never get written.
Daniel Florien and I Agree–Sort Of
Mark this day on your calender folks. It appears as though Daniel Florien (proprietor of Unreasonable Faith) and I agree on something. Well, sort of. Our points of view are vastly different, but we both agree that what Leilani Neumann did was reprehensible. Her daughter, Madeline, was sick of a treatable form of diabetes. Ms. Neumann prayed instead of seeking medical attention.
I agree with the court’s conclusion that this is negligent homicide. Though he never says so directly, I think that Mr. Florien also agrees with the court’s conclusion. However, Florien’s point of view is that God is imaginary, or he has somehow failed to answer the prayer. Human intervention could have saved the girl, but divine intervention appears to have done nothing.
What Mr. Florien, as an atheist, of course assumes that divine intervention will do nothing, ever. He assuemes that because he believes taht God isn’t real. So how does someone like myself, who believes that God is very real, arrive at the same conclusion that Florien does?
Simple. I believe that God uses us lowly humans to enact his healing. God works his great plan through intermediaries. Sometimes, he does things himself, and that is where religious experiences come from. Things like burning bushes or bright lights that knock people to the ground on Damascus roads are of God to be sure. But, so is a doctor healing a patient. Again, God uses us humans to enact his healing and his will.
Prayer doesn’t work on its own. Ever. It requires medical intervention. Prayer is only a supplement to competent medical care.
Total Depravity at its Finest
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.
Sad, but Symbolic
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.
Find a Christian
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.
Another Atheist Double Standard
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.
On Omniscience
Rey wonders out loud: “Where in the Bible does God declare that he is omniscient?” He then answers his own question: Nowhere. God never declares himself to be omniscient, or all-knowing. So we have to ask ourselves, must God declare something about himself for it to be true about himself? And, must something directly appear in the Bible for it to be true about God, or is it acceptable to deduce it from related Scriptures and/or natural theology?
Before we dive into these questions, it must be stated that I believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture: that the Bible we possess is inspired and inerrant, and sufficient for all of the activities listed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The problem in this entry is that Rey, the target of the criticism that I will present, doesn’t believe in inerrancy, nor does he believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture. Rey cherry-picks verses as inspired and uninspired to fit with what he believes about God. This is idolatry of the highest order.
That means that this criticism will likely fall under heavy fire from Rey in the form of rejecting the verses that I use as inspired.
It is not, mind you, that Rey rejects inspiration. He rejects plenary inspiration. He doesn’t believe that all of what we possess of the Bible is inspired, but he has yet to explain his system for accepting or rejecting verses.
Maybe There’s a More Constitutional Way to Do This?
As much as I love Jesus Christ and Christianity, we live in a secular world with secular values. I have to begrudgingly admit that VJack from Atheist Revolution is right.
Apparently, the U.S. Army is promoting Christianity as the solution to soldiers who threaten suicide.
Before I say why I think VJack is right, I should remind my readers that studies have been conducted that show a causal connection between suicide and atheism. Further, suicide rates among the religious are lower, as are stress levels. Time Magazine recently published an article that links regular prayer with the ability to heal faster and better. No matter what the atheists say, religion is a good thing.
Unfortunately, living in the society that we do, it is illegal to promote one religion over another. Therefore, VJack is right in the sense that we shouldn’t promote Christianity alone to soldiers. What about the rights of the non-Christian chaplains who will be forced to present that material?
Here’s the giant “but.” BUT, what about promoting religion in general as an answer to suicide? That is not illegal, and it even has benefits (outlined above). It should satisfy everyone concerned–except the atheist, of course.
There is another reason why I would be against promoting only Christianity as the alternative for suicide. Christianity is not a coerced religion; it is a religion which one must freely choose to follow. If the military is forcing its soldiers to follow Christianity, then a major point of the Christian faith is lost. Suddenly someone is a Christian not by choice or by preference, but because the military says they are.
This problem is the same facing the Roman Empire under Constantine. Constantine forced people to adopt Christianity as the state religion, and all discipleship was lost. Discipleship is one of the keys to Christianity; a person must learn what it means to be a Christian as a disciple to someone who already knows. The link to the left on Discipleship 101 should help any readers with that point.
Bottom line: Christianity is a journey and it requires the Christian to be willing to undertake the journey. If Christianity is coerced by the Army, it isn’t Christianity anymore.
Back Rome Again 