Category Archives: God
Does WWGHA Even Understand Christianity?
If one is going to criticize the viewpoint of another, then one had best understand the opposing view thoroughly. As an example, you will note that I do not enter into Creationism/Evolution/ID debates. I don’t know enough about the three camps to participate intelligently, save for being able to articulate the difference between pure Creationism and ID.
Over at the Blog for WWGHA, in response to this article from a Christian pastor, Thomas opines:
It’s the “infinite wisdom” rationalization. God is too huge and awesome for pipsqueak humans to understand. Never mind that Christians claim to understand God all the time, for example by demanding that homosexuals be discriminated against or even stoned to death, or that foreskins need to be cut off baby’s penises, etc. Christians claim knowledge of all sorts of God’s thoughts, but strangely, the explanation for the atrocities and horrors that we see every day are just too complicated. (source)
It’s simply absurd to suggest that anyone is being inconsistent to say that we know some things about God, but not other things. It is absolutely possible to say you know a person, but not understand everything that they do.
With God, some of his commands are clear, while others aren’t. But to suggest I’m inconsistent when I say that we humans aren’t going to understand some things about God while being able to understand other things is asinine.
Second, let’s set two things straight with the Christian (mis)treatment of homosexuals. We are not “denying” anyone the right to marry. The very makeup of marriage excludes homosexuals. It is a divinely ordered institution of a man joining to a woman, and they become one flesh. Polygamy isn’t specifically prohibited in this fashion, but men can’t marry men and women can’t marry women under this paradigm.
It would be like me saying “My goal is to be the next Pope.” I’m not a practicing Catholic; therefore I’m excluded from consideration for that office.
Or, if I tried to win a Hispanic scholarship. I’m white. I can’t win a scholarship oriented to Hispanic students. It defies the intent of the scholarship and the rules of those who created it and put up the money.
Marriage is a joining of a man to a woman. Period. We can’t deny someone a right that does not exist.
On a personal note to the blog author: Thomas, please find me a Christian who, in the last 20 years, actually called for a gay man to be stoned to death. If you can’t, then please withdraw that ridiculous claim.
On the foreskin question, Christians actually were not circumcised. Christians are exempt from all practices under the Jewish law. Paul makes it explicit:
For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Rom 2:25-29)
Though there is a clear advantage to circumcision in knowing the oracles of God (Rom 3:2), one shouldn’t seek it:
Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. (1 Cor 7:17-20)
What if someone does get circumcised despite the warning? Then:
. . . Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Gal 5:2-6)
Circumcision is not a Christian phenomenon.
Okay, now that we’re done with rabbit trails, is there actually an argument or an indictment here worth answering?
Sort of. We’ll talk tomorrow.
Hanging on to Faith, But Not Liking It
Rachel Held Evans appears to be toying with the notion of dropping the label of “Christian” altogether as she writes with tortured keystrokes:
I am hanging by the tips of sweaty fingers on this ledge of faith, wondering if letting go will bring freedom or death. I’ve hung on before—through the science wars, the gender wars, the Christmas wars, the culture wars—but I’m just so tired of fighting, so tired of feeling out of place. (source)
What’s the cause of this?
The Chik-fil-A controversy.
Rachel, like most in the liberal Christianity camp, rejects the notion that homosexuality is a sin. She even says it is a “right” that we conservatives aim to deny:
I too believe marriage is a civil right in this country, and I too get frustrated when Christians appeal to their faith to withhold this right from their neighbors. (source)
Rachel is clearly agonizing over her fellow Christians with the issue of homosexual marriage. She not only wants to stop praying, but she thinks it might be better for some to be separated from grace:
Suddenly, my religion is alien to me—small, petty, reactive. My faith has lost its bearings. I don’t feel like praying anymore, not even for the mom who begged me to pray for her gay son who vowed yesterday never to return to church again.
Can I blame him? Perhaps it is better if he stays away. (source)
I want to seize just a moment on one statement, which I think is the key to Rachel’s problem: “My faith has lost its bearings.”
Yes, it has. Now let’s examine why that’s the case.
Nick Peters argues, in part, that homosexuality isn’t part of special revelation (the Bible), but a part of general revelation:
. . . [I]n Leviticus 18 and 20, the verses following the list of sins tells us that it is for committing these sins that other nations are being cast out. Other nations were never punished for not following the dietary restrictions or wearing mixed fabrics. Those were practices that set Israel apart from the other nations as a sign they were in covenant with God. The other nations were commanded by Israel to live moral lives, but they were never commanded to follow Jewish practices. Jews could be condemned for trading with other nations on the Sabbath, but the other nations were not condemned for working on the Sabbath.
Note also that this places homosexuality in the category of general revelation. Other nations were cast out because of doing things that we can say that they should have known better. It would not make sense for God to punish a people when they could not have known that they were doing anything wrong. Since this is in general revelation then, you don’t need the Bible. (source)
So that means if you never pick up a Bible, you should still understand that homosexuality violates the natural order of things (see Dave Armstrong and Jennifer Fulwiler for more on this “natural order” argument). If you don’t see a violation of the natural order, then we have a bigger problem.
Why?
In committing any sin, you are essentially suppressing the truth of God through unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). And acting on such evil inclinations without a second thought is a judgment from God:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Rom 1:26-32)
Rachel gives approval to those who practice homosexuality, campaigning for their right to legally marry.
Well, no wonder her faith has lost its ground!
She has suppressed the natural law through unrighteous support of sin. Therefore, God is giving her over to these desires — and her faith is slipping because she feels the distance.
There are only two ways to end her cycles of uncertainty. She can let go of the cliff, and therefore fall into the abyss. Or, she can recommit to understanding God in his glory, on his terms (even the decrees she doesn’t like), thus hauling herself back onto the safety of the ledge.
Either option will settle her mind, but only one leads to life. And it’s easier to let go rather than muster the strength to climb back up (Mt 7:13-14).
The Parable of the Year 4500 [PARODY]
A warning to the sarcastically impaired… this post is meant in jest, but it raises a valid point that bears addressing by atheists of OUR time. Before it’s even a question from speed readers or skimmers, I am not de-converting.
By Supportstorm (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
But I have, at last, thrown off the shackles of Christian oppression and joined the Brights of society, in knowing the truth that there is no God.
I now post my anti-testimony so that others may find the strength to resist the mindvirus of Christianity. But let me start with a little history…
Christians in 4500 point to two incontrovertible “miracles” proving the existence of their god. The first is the so-called Resurrection, when their zombie lord allegedly rose from the dead.
The second allegedly happened five days after an anonymous writer of what they used to call a “blog” wrote this:
If one evening, every star in the sky began to move in unison, and converge to form an illuminated three dimensional Latin Cross that filled the entire void, leaving the rest of the sky utterly black, devoid of any stars or planets; with Jesus’ face superimposed upon it, speaking in all languages at once its expectations of us, and for good measure it simultaneously rained human blood across the planet; and this all lasted for 24 hrs so that every person on Earth could view the event for themselves … I’d buy it. I’d become the worlds greatest Christian. Or if it were equally strong evidence of some other god being, I’d be first in line to at least apologize to it for my denial and happily sacrifice to it, grovel at its hooves, or otherwise demonstrate my reverence.. (source)
Five days after that, it happened. Millions of eyewitnesses saw it, and thousands posted accounts online and newspapers carried stories and the media frenzy was born.
And so was Christian oppression. Because who could argue with an actual appearance of God?
But I echo the arguments of many critics of this so-called “event” of mid-2012. I now do not believe it happened. The facile replies of the Christian so-called apologists lack so much luster as to be incredible. Even fanciful.
So, here are my questions. . .
First, Why did God wait so long? Allegedly, your “savior” rose from the dead in the year 33. Yet, this fictitious event didn’t occur until 2012 — almost 2000 years later. It seems to me that if God truly cared about humanity, he would never let questions about his existence happen, since you go to hell if you don’t believe in him.
So he wouldn’t have waited. He would have made the first great miracle, the Resurrection, more obvious. The Resurrection, in fact, is all he should have needed to prove that Jesus was who he said he was. People would believe then.
The fact that your god needed a second miracle proves he is inept and not worthy of worship.
Second, Where’s the video of this event? Christian apologists claim that as a supernatural event, this couldn’t have been put on video. Therefore, all of the video from the time that shows a typical, non-rearranged night sky is what we’d expect to see.
Well, it seems to me that if God expected this miracle to convince everyone of his existence, that he’d leave more than just a few eyewitnesses. I know that it is claimed the “entire planet” saw this, but that isn’t good enough. The Resurrection was supposedly seen by over 500 people who were still alive at the time of writing, but I can’t question them now, either. Therefore, both miracles suffer from lack of adequate attestation. Which leads us to …
Why do you expect me to take this on eyewitness testimony alone? Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. I can’t question any of these people today, and supposedly there’s no actual video of this event. The hundreds of blog posts that still exist are no proof, since the Church could have put those together and claimed they were authentic.
I bet they even destroyed the counter-testimony, the people of the era who said this event never happened. There was bound to be lots of those, as I understand atheist activism was popular on the Internet of 2012. Where are all of the atheists who would have decried this obvious Christian propaganda?
Destroyed by the Church, that’s where.
So that’s my case. That is why I now stand with the atheists. Go ahead, theists. Prove me wrong.
In other words, given the space of time, people will find old ways to disbelieve new miracles. All of these arguments are repackaged versions of anti-Resurrection arguments. Nice try, Atheist Camel. Believe because of the Resurrection, or move along. It is the only sign you’re getting.
Krauss’s Wager
Luke Nix of Faithful Thinkers ruminates on two of Lawrence Krauss’s recent statements:
Recently in a discussion with Justin Brierly (Unbelievable?) and Rodney Holder, Lawrence Krauss made an interesting statement (podcast: 58:01):
“You talk about this god of love and everything else. But somehow if you don’t believe in him, you don’t get any of the benefits, so you have to believe. And then if you do anything wrong, you’re going to be judged for it. I don’t want to be judged by god; that’s the bottom line.”
Earlier in the program Krauss also described himself as an antitheist and made a distinction from being called an atheist. Taken in the context of the quote above this distinction and title makes a lot of sense.
Absolutely: this is something that I’ve seen from atheists before. It’s not that they don’t grant the possibility of God — it’s the judgment of God they would like to deny.
It’s not fair.
I’m just being me.
The second objection is true. You are just being you: a sinful human being deserving of God’s judgment. But the first statement is false. God isn’t being unfair; he, too, is being him.
As apologists, it is not enough to address a worldview as a whole, we must look into the specific views of an individual to appeal to them on both an intellectual level and an emotional level.
And Luke unpacks all of that nicely in this post.
Is There REALLY No Evidence for God?
I know every atheist reader is simply going to say “YES” when they read my title and move on. So be it. For those of you still here, I think that Seth Dillon of Logical Faith sums things up nicely:
Atheists . . . have adopted a naturalistic worldview, which means they believe that every event, no matter how supernatural or miraculous it may seem, can be explained without appeal to the supernatural. Thus their disbelief is not the result of a lack of evidence that God exists, but of a philosophy which, from the outset, denies the possibility of any such evidence. In other words, they’re bringing a ready-made conclusion to the evidence, rather than drawing a conclusion from it. Such backward thinking is begging the question, and is neither reasonable nor scientific.
Despite what atheists would have you believe, Christianity is a self-proclaimed evidence-based faith, with Jesus being the supreme piece of evidence.
Meeting the Contrarian’s Third Challenge to Believers
I’ve talked about the Contrarian (part 1 | part 2), and his strawman representation of the Christian gospel. As it happens, this guy is a gold mine of article ideas for an apologetics blogger. Sort of a one-stop shopping center for a writer who needs ideas.
Therefore, I couldn’t resist his first challenge to believers. I have no idea why I answered it. Along with the second and third challenges, he proves he is only interested in grandstanding for an atheist audience.
So far, #3 is the final challenge and I hope it mercifully stays that way, even though it is the only one remotely interesting: “unobfuscate the Trinity”:
Lucifer: The trinity has caused divisions amongst various christian denominations for centuries. There are those christians who bellieve that Jesus was god in the flesh and those who say he is the sun of god and an entity distinct from god almighty.
Contrarian: Jesus BLATANTLY said things on numerous occasions that points to the fact that he is a being distinct from god, and not god in human form. Before and after being crucified, Jesus prays to god to let this cup pass from his lips, and to forgive his persecutors because they know not what they do.
Furthermore, Jesus also said that neither the angels in heaven nor he (referring to himself) knows the day of his second coming. But he clearly states that God does and speaks of him as a separate entity.
There are various other cases where Jesus makes it plain as daylight that he is NOT GOD incarnate, such as when he claims to have observed the creation of the world, but was not the one doing the creating.
The Contrarian is actually on to something. His problem is one of equivocation, though I don’t think he realizes that he is the one committing the error.
Let’s see if I can set this straight.
First, in general the doctrine of the Trinity (at it’s most basic) says that the Father, Son, and Spirit share an essence but remain distinct persons. Something like I am simultaneously a husband to Jody, father to Ashleigh, Gabe, and Kayti, and a manager to my staff at work.
Each role is different.
This isn’t a perfect analogy — but it’s a step in the right direction. JP Holding, infamous Internet apologist, explains the Father-Son-Spirit relationship better in this video.
Second, we need to get some definitions straight. “God” sometimes refers to the ontological category of what Jesus and the Father are — in other words, their shared essence. Other times, “God” refers to the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. For our purposes in this post, God always means the essence of deity and Father refers to the person.
With this in mind, let’s see how equivocation derails the Contrarian’s line of thought.
Jesus BLATANTLY said things on numerous occasions that points to the fact that he is a being distinct from god, and not god in human form. Before and after being crucified, Jesus prays to god to let this cup pass from his lips, and to forgive his persecutors because they know not what they do.
Wrong.
Jesus is God, distinct from the Father. He is God in the flesh — not the Father in the flesh. Jesus is praying not to his essence, but his Father.
Furthermore, Jesus also said that neither the angels in heaven nor he (referring to himself) knows the day of his second coming. But he clearly states that God does and speaks of him as a separate entity.
Again, he’s speaking of the Father, not of God in an ontological sense.
There are various other cases where Jesus makes it plain as daylight that he is NOT GOD incarnate, such as when he claims to have observed the creation of the world, but was not the one doing the creating.
Again, he’s observing the Father creating.
Critical reading and a little bit of thought should unobfuscate the Trinity. I hope that I’ve helped.
Meeting the Contrarian’s Second Challenge to Believers
I’ve talked about the Contrarian (part 1 | part 2), and his strawman representation of the Christian gospel. As it happens, this guy is a gold mine of article ideas for an apologetics blogger. Sort of a one-stop shopping center for a writer who needs ideas.
Therefore, I couldn’t resist his first challenge to believers. I have no idea why I answered it. Along with the second and third challenges, he proves he is only interested in grandstanding for an atheist audience.
Though he claims he is “actually here hoping that someone will prove me wrong and enhance my understanding of reality,” he goes on:
I give the faithful a snowball’s chance in hell that they will actually do so—if past success can help us predict future success—but I must remain true to my scientific convictions. At any moment, anyone could come forward with proof that would require me to abandon my current perceptions; this is why I dedicate this article to asking questions that I would like answers to. (source)
Yeah, that’s the kind of statement we expect from someone who has already decided the outcome before running the experiment.
Now, on to the second challenge for believers. As it is written in a make-believe dialogue with Lucifer, I’m not sure why the Contrarian expects anyone to actually take it seriously.
Yet, I’m lending it credibility by answering it.
Go figure.
Anyway, he’s asking for a YouTube video from a believer demonstrating any of the following three things:
- Levitation
- Walking on low-viscosity fluids
- Raising someone from the dead
Why? Matthew 17:20, of course:
Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.
Now, of course, no believer has ever taken this as meaning that we’d actually command a mountain to jump to a new location. We’ve always understood Christ to be using a rhetorical device common among Semitic people even today — hyperbole.
Why can’t this be a rhetorical device?
The Contrarian doesn’t say.
Of course, the best answer to his drivel is found in the comments section, from Saffa in Asia:
After months of watching this religion bashing and the pointless back and forth arguing, I have come to the conclusion the only way to end this stupidity is for theists to totally ignore the rants and raves of atheists.
If you don’t react, they will become bored and move on to something else where they can get a reaction, for it is the reaction that feeds them.
Ever tried to fight with someone who doesn’t fight back? Rather frustrating. So, don’t feed the trolls. Theists and atheists have made their relevant points over and over again and we are still at square number one.
I know for sure I will get lots of thumbs down and lots of snide comments about being a coward, deluded, stupid, ignorant etc, etc but who cares? Not me.
So I bid you adieu and I trust others will follow suit.
Meeting the Contrarian’s First Challenge to Believers
I’ve talked about the Contrarian (part 1 | part 2), and his strawman representation of the Christian gospel. As it happens, this guy is a gold mine of article ideas for an apologetics blogger. Sort of a one-stop shopping center for a writer who needs ideas.
Therefore, I couldn’t resist his first challenge to believers. I have no idea why I’m answering it. This, along with second and third challenges, are just plain idiotic — proving he is only interested in grandstanding for an atheist audience.
Though he claims he is “actually here hoping that someone will prove me wrong and enhance my understanding of reality,” he goes on:
I give the faithful a snowball’s chance in hell that they will actually do so—if past success can help us predict future success—but I must remain true to my scientific convictions. At any moment, anyone could come forward with proof that would require me to abandon my current perceptions; this is why I dedicate this article to asking questions that I would like answers to.
Yeah, that’s the kind of statement we expect from someone who has already decided the outcome before running the experiment. Read the rest of this entry
Answering the Contrarian, part 2: How not to Evangleize
In this article, a netizen going by “the Contrarian” presents a seriously distorted view of the gospel. After that, he helpfully tells us Christians how not to evangelize him:
Don’t come to me telling me that you are different from ‘other’ christians, and that you represent a god of love, and that you are peaceful, intelligent and worthy of having your beliefs propagated into the legal and education system of the land. You are the very definition of a fundamentalist, and like the proverbial village idiot; you cannot see what is wrong with you, or why others think you’re nuts. !
First, I’d proudly say I’m different from other Christians. For example:
- I never say “Oh my God!” as an expletive. One of the Christians I work with at a youth ministry co-op, however, uses it liberally.
- My pastor has, in three different sermons, condemned the TV show The Big Bang Theory as something no Christian should watch. I, however, watch it almost every night.
- I’ve condemned gay marriage on this blog numerous times in the past. However, I know of committed Christians who are openly homosexual.
- I believe God is absolutely sovereign, and has planned and purposed reality to a certain end. However, open theists (like John Sanders) believe that God has done no such thing; and in fact cannot predict the actions of humans by virtue of our free agency.
I’d never say that I represent a God of love. The God I represent is love.
I’m peaceful. Prove otherwise.
I’m intelligent. People who know me know that I’m the kind of person who knows a little bit about almost everything.
As for having my beliefs propagated into the legal system, I’m afraid that many of them already are:
- Social programs (especially Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Social Security) take care of “Honor your father and mother” (Ex 20:12) and they also pay homage to Deuteronomy 15:7-9.
- Murder (Ex 20:13) is a capital crime in most states.
- Theft of any sort is illegal (Ex 20:15).
- Perjury, obstruction of justice, and other sorts of misdirection while investigating or prosecuting a criminal case are all illegal (Ex 20:16).
Other examples could be found, but I think I’ve made my point.
Now to be charitable to the Contrarian, he’s likely referring to proposed laws to eliminate gay marriage, or laws that interfere with him buying liquor on Sundays. He thinks that such laws are religious nonsense and have no place in a secular society. Worse, he thinks these laws are self-evident religious nonsense; that everyone should take his word for it because “it’s obvious.”
To wit, I’d like for him to find “No alcohol sales on Sunday” in the Bible. It isn’t there. The only so-called blue laws still on the books are sales of alcoholic beverages, probably retained out of tradition and convenience.
You can’t legislate morality, and the Bible isn’t written with the assumption that you can. In fact, most of the New Testament assumes the law of the land will be hostile to Christian practice — a tide that is headed this way in the United States, especially where our practice forbids gay marriage.
I agree with anyone who says gay marriage is a non-issue. It shouldn’t be an issue at all, because it is not marriage. Marriage is always between a man and a woman. Variations exist (one man, many women; one woman, many men; varying numbers of men and women), but both genders always participate.
As to my beliefs being placed in the education system of the land, why not? The atheist beliefs already are, and with quite a lot of force. Why can mine not be shown as an alternative? We can give fair time to other religions as well — I’m okay with that because I believe that truth always wins out.
What is the atheist scared of? If what he offers is truth, will that not win out? Or does the atheist think when offered a choice between religious myth and scientific truth, that religious myth always wins and society will remain unenlightened?
If so, maybe religious “myth” is true, because it is winning out!
Moving on, the Contrarian writes:
Don’t come here claiming that you are a ‘good’ or a ‘real’ christian. The better and more real a christian you are, the more inhuman, amoral, sick and twisted you are. You are a bloodthirsty beast with an inflated ego because you think your skydaddy is real and will vindicate you shortly. Dream on! If that is what sustains you, if that is what gives you purpose, then nothing in this physical world is violent, torturous, absolute, sick and offensive enough to satiate your wicked mind and your black heart!
I’m not good. None of us are. That’s the reason we need a Savior. I’m not even a good Christian! I fail all the time.
The Contrarian is going to have to expound on why a “better and more real” Christian is “inhuman, amoral, sick, and twisted.” I don’t see it that way. The marks of the Christian, according to the apostle Paul, are:
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:10-21)
That’s “inhuman, amoral, sick, and twisted”? If the Contrarian’s ideal person behaves the opposite of that, then I don’t want to live in his world.
Of course, all the best bloodthirsty beasts with inflated egos try to outdo everyone showing honor, bless people who persecute them, overcome evil with good, and live peaceable with everyone as much as it depends on them. That is why people call them “bloodthirsty beasts” — because they are so peaceable with others and easy to get along with.
The Contrarian says, “I’ll take the exploding dot and the swamp water into humans story any day!” Why? Simple: it makes him the star. In this story, there is no good or evil. He is a slave to his nature, as he would be in Christianity, but that nature is neither good nor evil because it cannot be (by definition). Therefore, he doesn’t have to face judgment for being who he is.
Theism isn’t the crutch. Atheism is — atheism is comfortable because there is no ultimate accountability. Which brings us back to my (apparently sick, in the Contrarian’s eyes) belief that God is real and will vindicate me shortly.
Vindicate me for what, exactly?
The world has wronged God, not me. He will vindicate himself and take his wrath on the wicked — those who persist in their unbelief in his Son. I deserve every bit of that wrath as well, but I have been protected by the blood of my Savior. It’s nothing I did to get to heaven. And I will not rejoice over the lost.
If this is the Contrarian’s understanding of the gospel, then no wonder he’s an atheist. That’s as distorted as it gets. He needs to buckle back down and read that Book he despises so much. Only this time, maybe he should take the time to understand it.
Back Rome Again 