Category Archives: God
Blog for WWGHA Lauds Ann Rice for Renouncing Christianity
After writing some pro-Christian works, such as Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt and Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana, acclaimed author Anne Rice made the following announcement on her Facebook page:
For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
Followed closely by:
As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.
Well, I have a few reactions. First and foremost, I don’t know why the Blog for WhyWhyWon’tGodHealAmputees is touting this as some sort of victory for reason. This isn’t a victory, though Thomas thinks it could turn into one. Anne Rice still considers herself committed to Christ, she is just hesitant to align herself with Christianity because it espouses doctrines which she finds morally reprehensible.
On that note, we have to understand that faith in Christ is the only requirement for salvation. So this post is not an attempt to question Anne Rice’s salvation. If she still has faith in Christ, then there is still hope that God will deliver her from her serious misunderstanding that these “morally reprehensible” doctrines are that. In other words, the witness of the Holy Spirit can show her the error of her thinking, and she will be able to repent and remain in humble obedience to God.
Building on that foundation, we also have to understand that orthodoxy (right belief) leads to orthopraxy (right practice). Anne Rice is not orthodox if she fails to submit to the teachings of Scripture regarding homosexuality, the functional subordination of women in the church, and ethics and epistemology. If she isn’t orthodox, then her pattern of thinking is in rebellion to God, and therefore actions stemming from those incorrect thought patterns, will also be contrary to God (i.e. sin). I’ve written on the importance of matters of heart on my main blog, here, with a long list of proofs from Scripture.
That said, Anne Rice is putting herself on the wrong side of James 1:22. She’s currently a hearer, not a doer, and therefore deceiving herself. I don’t question her salvation, but her diligence in sanctification (2 Pet 1:3-11).
Because I loved the Commercial. . .
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
Idiotic Argument Against Christianity
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.
Object Lesson in Why Some Hate Calvinism, part II
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
Object Lesson in Why Some Hate Calvinism, part I
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
Religious Bigotry
I have tried to fight a fight that I’m not destined to win with skeptics of Christianity. None of them are ever going to see the grounds for homosexuality being a sin since they do not accept the authority of Scripture. It’s the same with the clearly defined roles of gender in the church.
Women have achieved a measure of equality within secular society. This isn’t a bad thing. It’s very good. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes a woman selecting and purchasing property, managing the household, running the family finances, and bringing in a second income through work. But, the apostle Paul precludes the possibility of women serving in church leadership roles. Of women in general:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:12-14)
He clearly defines that church leadership will be male. He says of bishops:
If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive. . . . He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim 3:1-4, 6-7)
Of deacons:
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (1 Tim 3:8-12)
But notice why Paul forbids the woman from teaching authority: it goes back to the Fall. God’s pre-Fall intention was for the woman to be a helper and a companion. But, what ended up happening? Eve first ate of the forbidden fruit, and then Adam because of her. God then decreed:
I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. (Gen 3:16)
But that wasn’t the original intent. The woman being submissive to the man is punishment because of sin. Once sin entered the world, it corrupted everything, including the intended relationship dynamic between a man and his wife.
So what we see today is a corruption of the pure and good intent of the original created order. Despite this, it is still God’s command that the woman remain subservient to the man, since it was first the woman who was deceived by the Enemy and by the woman the man fell into transgression.
Call it religiously-motivated bigotry if you want, but the intended order of creation will be restored after the Final Judgment, and in eternity we will exist as equals, in perfect fellowship with the Creator. The woman will not remain subservient to the man forever, but for now it must be.
New Atheist Graphic
I just saw the following graphic on Common Sense Atheism. It’s new to me, so forgive me if it’s really old:
This, of course, has it completely wrong. God always was, there was never a time when he didn’t exist. He has existed in eternity before time, before anything else ever was, and that renders the facetious argument of this graphic invalid. He didn’t come from nothing, he never “sprang into being.” He simply existed, always.
I Love Irony
I recently began following a new blog, Atheist Camel. I generally find it pretty inflammatory and I was going to unsubscribe, until I stumbled on this post. That made me decide to keep following, at least for the time being. The reason why is the irony that said post brings to the forefront. Read the rest of this entry
Didn’t I Just Talk About This?
This video from Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church (FL), highlights the exact point I was trying to make in my previous post regarding Rabbi Barry Block’s comments on Exodus. Dr. Hunter says that it is very dangerous to attach a literal meaning to Genesis 1 since it might drive away potential converts (especially if they might be scientists).
Dr. Hunter calls us to contemplate the fuller mystery of God.
However, he does rightly recognize that if we mythologize parts of the Bible, then how are we to understand other parts of the Bible? Are they also allegory? If the creation story found in Genesis 1 is only a myth constructed by Bronze Age herdsmen who don’t have a lick of scientific sense in their bodies, then can’t the same argument also be applied to the Resurrection?
We’re pandering to culture here. And as Christians, we should be better than that! How can we be salt and light to the world if, by our beliefs and actions, we are just like the world?
Who Designed the Designer?
This video, from YouTube user AntitheistAtheist, has the critical praise of numerous atheists in the comments found below the video. Examples:
- I like your style kid, keep on thinking. Think bigger and further.
- we [sic] dont [sic] surely know how the universe gets here, nobody does and it has to be accepted. the [sic] mistake that theists do is to explain everything that cant be explained with god of somesort [sic]
- Maybe that’s it God created us who was created by a larger God and so on and so on in an ever expanding universe.
- [S]cience has answered all of the greatest questions up to date, coming up with the only reasonable answers. Religion has answered nor prooved [sic] anything. It is absolutely reliant on “faith”, that is an integral part of the deal “Just believe!”. It may never be answered, but if it ever is, zou [sic] can bet science will find the answer and not faith.
The last commenter, in typical atheist style, presents an alternate definition of faith that is not what faith really means. I’ve advocated the death penalty for this before, and I think the law is on my side.
Anyway, why is Who designed the designer? still so popular among atheists? There’s an easy answer to the question. Here it is, from philosopher William Lane Craig:
Notice that Craig laughs about the objection. Like me, he finds it absurd.
Back Rome Again 