Ever Wonder Why Atheists Have Certain Misconceptions About the Faith?
Atheists have the misconceptions that they have because believers have them, too. I follow several blogs attached to the website XXXChurch.com. Why? Because both implicitly and explicitly I have made mention that my spiritual weakness is pornography and lust. So I read the Confessions Blog and follow the Couples, Men, and Parenting Blogs from that site for moral support to stay away from that stuff.
One of the misconceptions that atheists often have is that God will take care of everything for you and make your life easy. Since that never seems to materialize, the atheist then concludes God doesn’t exist. The problem? God never once promises to make life easy.
After Adam ate the forbidden fruit, God cursed the ground, the earth, and all of creation. God decreed that, instead of living in the lap of luxury, we would now toil and labor to get anything from the earth. That hasn’t changed just because Jesus hung on the Cross. Our sins are now forgiven, but that doesn’t mean that we automatically get a gold ticket.
Atheists think that we should, and argue in that manner. Prime example: God is Imaginary, proof #28. The author (Marshall Brain?) states:
A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary. How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone.
He states that all prayers would be answered affirmatively, and followers would live longer, be healthier, and be wealthier. In other words, God is somehow obligated to bless us with vast material wealth, even though this same God warns us repeatedly not to rely on or accumulate excessive material wealth. (Here’s my full rebuttal to proof #28).
Where are atheists getting misconceptions like this? God has blessed us with all of the heavenly blessings (Eph 1:1-3), which are far greater than any earthly things (Heb 8:1-13). Why must God give us earthly blessings as well?
What’s the source of the misconception? Believers. Believers also seem to think that God will provide everything for them . He will take care of our needs, but he is not going to bow to our every desire. Just because we want something doesn’t mean we automatically get it (Phil 3:19).
Here’s a prime example from the Men’s Confessions Blog of XXXChurch.com of a Christian who should know better nonetheless having the idea that God is going to do everything for him:
Um well my first introduction to porn was about when I was 12. But it was nothing serious or anything, just a curious mind. I thought it was just normal at first. But that first time turned into hundreds of times.
That’s how it works. Trust me. I didn’t even like my first exposure to pornography. I couldn’t understand what was so hot about looking at a girl without clothes. Naked people look kind of silly, I thought. Oh, how my opinion changed. And changed quickly, I might point out!
It is really sad because I am a very strong Christian, in fact I am a minister. Even further than that I am the youth minister and director of my church.
Well, not surprising. He may be a minister, but he’s also a guy. Guys like to see women in nothing or next to nothing. Human sexuality creates some powerful urges, but it’s all in how one directs and uses them because they won’t stop and God doesn’t take them away. Hold that thought, and remember it; etch it on your forehead with an Xacto knife if you must: God doesn’t take sexual urges away. It would do more harm than good.
It used to be just a fun thing to do but now it is consuming my free time, even my life.
I can relate, unfortunately. Porn consumed a lot of my time and untold amounts of my money. And it starts out as just something fun to do every once in a while.
And I know God is able to remove the desire from me, but I have been praying for so long and still not seeing any change.
This guy’s a minister? Doesn’t this situation sound familiar to him at all?
I have the faith that He will do it for me, . . .
He didn’t for the apostle Paul, why would God do it for this guy? I’m not knocking his ministry, because he probably does quite a bit of good, but I’m pretty sure Paul was a lot more important in the grand scheme of God’s plan than this one church. If God used a persistent sin to humble Paul into the realization that the grace of God is sufficient for all sins, then he’s probably going to do the exact same thing for this guy.
. . . it’s just why does it have to take so long. I really am tired of doing it. I’m tired of living this double life. I want to be completely and totally sold out for God. Please continue to pray for and with me.
If he wants to be free, then be free. God has already given all Christians the resources needed to live a spiritually fulfilled life:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. (Eph 1:3-4)
Notice the present tense: “who has blessed us in Christ.” It’s not a future blessing we’re expecting. It’s a present tense blessing we receive!
Stop waiting for God to remove the desire. He’s not going to do that. Instead, look for more productive ways to channel the desire. Redirect it. Celibacy is a discipline; here’s Jimmy Akin on that topic, with several distinctions of confusing terms.
Wow!
I read this post from Anthony Horvath. It is well worth the read, as he covers what atheists should understand before trying to criticize the Bible. I’ve generally found that Bible criticisms stem from a lack of understanding of one or more points that Horvath mentions. Occasionally, however, there are other points that atheists miss. Consistent hermeneutics is one; often they will find a “contradiction” by interpreting one passage one way and interpreting the contradicting passage using a completely different hermeneutic. Progressive revelation is another thing that they fail on regularly. Of the two most misinterpreted passages in the entire Bible, one can be settled by looking at the context:
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mt 5:18-20)
Atheists frequently point to that passage as evidence that the Old Testament Law is still in effect. However, if they’d only read verse 17, they’d find something interesting: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Interesting. Jesus is saying in verse 18 that the Law won’t pass away until it’s accomplished, but he assures us in just the previous sentence that he will do that! Our critics are very careful readers. Yeah, right.
But what I think is the most amazing thing about Horvath’s article is the comment section. In the first comment, he dedicates the post to an atheist reader who doesn’t feel that he needs to read the Bible in order to criticize it. The atheist’s response is very telling:
Indeed I do not need to read the texts of Scientology, the Book of Mormon, the Bible or the ravings of David Koresh to deem them extremely unlikely to be true. Don’t make me break out the “SJ’s Flying Car” analogy…
To which Horvath replies, as I would have, that if you’re going to criticize something, then you ought to give it a read:
No, you don’t need to read them to ‘deem’ them anything. But if you’re going to open your mouth in public to knock them then you should actually know what you’re talking about, first. Why you bother trying to convince people, ie, people like me, that my position is ‘unlikely to be true’ when you don’t know jack about the particulars of the position, is beyond me. There is no way you’d be considered credible. Indeed, you aren’t.
On my shelf: The Book of Mormon, the texts of Scientology, the texts of Christian Science, the JW translation of the Bible, the Satanic Bible, the Koran… to name some that come immediately to mind. Are there things I haven’t researched as much that I have nonetheless formed a general opinion on? Of course. I am a finite creature. But you don’t hear me discoursing on those.
You might want to consider a similar philosophy.
And the atheist replies, “I prefer to have a life.”
This is just sad. I know I’ve said this somewhere before: if you’re going to critique a position, at least know what the proponents of that position are arguing. This is why I don’t critique evolution and why I stay away from church history arguments. I don’t know much about either. If that changes, I might reconsider. Indeed, I plan to immerse myself in church history (particularly early church history) this year. But until then, I’m going to stick to philosophy, which I do know something about.
One of My Pet Peeves
I have a friend who read the title and thought of a great Taco Bell story immediately. One that involved a cellphone, a rude customer, and me expressing my anger in an unhealthy way. But that’s not what I’m here to discuss.
Rude cellphone use, when it interferes with one’s ability to properly interact with people physical present in one’s environment, is one of my pet peeves still today. But the pet peeve under discussion goes by a few names. I think the most common one is spin.
Spin is when you’re asked a fairly direct question and your answer to it fails to actually answer it. It’s commonly employed by politicians. People who use it generally come off as having something to hide.
An example of spin can be seen in this video. William Lane Craig asks Christopher Hitchens a simple question: “What variety of non-theist are you?” Hitchens won’t answer, because none of the choices are convenient for his argument.
Spin isn’t limited to unbelievers. Christians do it to, especially where soteriology is concerned. Religious pluralism is a fairly hot topic right now, and many Christians, fearing reprisal from the culture, don’t want to adopt the “wrong” view according to culture. Yet we want to adopt the right view according to God, not the view that is going to win us the most points in the culture.
Dr. Randal Rauser, in this article, has been asked a direct question about soteriology: “So… what is it one must believe or trust [to be saved]? And how does it lead to works?” But does he answer it? Nope. He spins. Read the rest of this entry
Slavery in the Bible Revisited
In the previous post, I quoted 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 in order to make a point that the Bible doesn’t endorse church-hopping. That passage has Paul urging Christians to stay in the situation in which they were called. Most often, candidates to enter seminary for full-time ministry are told to reflect on that passage.
As much as Christendom (both Roman Catholics and Protestants) needs preachers, we are loathe to have people enter the ministry who are needed elsewhere. God doesn’t call everyone to be ministers in the sense of being in the full-time employ of a local church. Consider 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. Paul specifically tells us that everyone receives different spiritual gifts, and each is therefore called to different duties within the church.
However, the passage from 1 Corinthians 7 I quoted in the previous article contains an extensive discussion of slavery, urging slaves to remain under their masters (unless they gain an opportunity to be freed). Any mention of slavery in the Bible disgusts and outrages critics of Christianity, and unless I deal with the potential objection now it will be raised. I will probably be accused of being pro-slavery unless I deal with it now.
Slavery in the Bible is seriously misunderstood. Check Glenn Miller’s contextualization of ANE slavery here. Slavery in the Bible was closer in nature to the modern employer-employee relationship. There were significant areas of difference that would make slavery far less desirable than a modern at-will employment contract, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that no differences exist. Skeptics normally think of the African Slave Trade when faced with passages about slavery in the Bible, but that’s not what the Bible means by “slavery.”
This is another example of the skeptic’s outright refusal to understand the Bible on its own terms. They are reading a modern idea into an ancient document. The writers of the Bible knew nothing of the brutality of the African Slave Trade, which involved the kidnapping and forcible transplanting of an indigenous people–a practice that is forbidden in Mosaic Law.
Slavery was first eliminated in the Roman Empire and beyond in the early part of the first millennium by Christians because they saw it as a moral evil and an abomination in the sight of God.
Slavery was resurrected over strenuous papal opposition with the African Slave Trade of the 1700 and 1800s. This would not have been endorsed by the Bible. The end of the African Slave Trade in the mid-1800s marked the second time slavery was abolished from the world–and it was also accomplished by Christians. Atheists have made every effort to cast non-Christians as the key players in abolition, and often cite sermons of leading pastors that endorse slavery. They do everything to isolate Christian abolitionists from Christianity. But the fact remains that abolition was a Christian movement.
For a document that endorses slavery as much as skeptics claim, the Bible was somehow used twice to denounce and eliminate it. Funny, that.
General Commentary on De-Conversions
You might think that this is going to be an article on Christians de-converting to atheism. No. I’ve interacted with those guys over the years I’ve been doing apologetics. I can actually sympathize with their position, and I can even allow for validity in some of their arguments.
One in particular that I hear again and again is that Christians don’t read the Bible for what it says; they cherry-pick whatever doctrine they want to believe and ignore the rest. That’s not true of every Christian, even though the ex-Christian turned critic of his former faith wants the reader of his blog (don’t they all have blogs?) to believe as much.
To bolster this claim, the ex-Christian typically points to the fact that there are many, many different denominations of Christianity. They usually put the number of denominations between 33,000 and 40,000, but it changes quite often. Thirty-three thousand was the prevailing number I heard when I founded this ministry in 2006. By 2009, 38,000 was the prevailing number. In late 2010, I heard 42,000 somewhere.
This number is grossly inflated and literally has no basis in reality. I’ve pointed to this article by James White as refutation (White revisited the issue here) and asked for some substantiation of that number from people who throw it to me. I have yet to receive any documentation proving that number. I’m sure I never will.
Leaving that aside, the next statement ex-Christians usually make is that, with all of these denominations, if you don’t like what doctrines your church has cherry-picked, then you can just go to the church down the road.
This is a horrible mentality, but often is the case with some Christians. Church-hopping is never the answer to a dispute. This is something Catholics have right on the money: the church is the central repository of doctrine; “a pillar and buttress of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). The Christian should be in submission to his local church. He shouldn’t just hop to another church that suits his whims.
I can develop and defend this idea later. For now, let’s just take it as a given.
Recently, I have seen two examples of public figures church-hopping. When public figures do something, it lends respectability to the practice–however illegitimate the practice may be. Something like this just makes Christians look bad, or even hypocrital. Read the rest of this entry
Knowing How to Live Righteously
Paul made the following forceful statement about knowing God:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom 1:19-20, emphasis added)
In other words, we know God is there, and his attributes are revealed to us by God and perceived in all that he has made. There is no excuse for being an atheist.
How clear are these attributes? How clear is God’s plan for living a righteous life? Flipping back to Genesis, I was somewhat intrigued by the story of Cain and Abel.
Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. (Gen 4:2-5)
The sacrificial system wasn’t in place yet. That wouldn’t be codified for over 1000 years. God accepts the offering that Abel gives, but not the one that Cain gives. This angers Cain (v. 5). God, however, offers interesting consolation:
Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it. (Gen 4:6-7)
God is indicating that it isn’t about the sacrifice, it’s about doing well and ruling sin rather than letting sin rule you. It’s not about the religious offering. It’s about freedom from sin.
What happens next? Does Cain heed God’s advice? Does he live a godly life worthy of acceptance? Nope–Cain kills Abel in a jealous rage. He’s upset that God accepted his brother’s sacrifice and not his.
Cain is told by God to live virtuously. God is trying to explain that it isn’t about the sacrifice at all. It’s about living free of sin in the first place.
But there’s something deeper here. Cain was simply told to live in a worthy manner, without being given any rules or regulations. The Law, which codifies living in a worthy manner, was centuries away from being written down by Moses. This indicates that Cain already knows how to live virtuously!
And so, I believe, do we. It’s just that we don’t. And therein lies the problem, which Paul discusses in Romans 7:
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (vv. 14-25)
Matthew 24: A Very Misunderstood Passage
Matthew 24 is called the Olivet Discourse. It is Jesus’ own discussion of eschatology and is often the center of criticism. In this sermon, Jesus makes the single most controversial prediction of his earthly ministry: he predicts the end of the age and says that it will occur within the lifetime of his hearers.
Obviously, we’re still here so many contend that this prediction didn’t come true. Faced with that dilemma, the leading prophecy experts (Tim LaHaye, Thomas Ice, and others) say that “generation” doesn’t refer to Jesus’ hearers at all but some far distant generation.
I read LaHaye’s book Are We Living in the End Times? (Tyndale House Publishers, 2000) many moons ago. I didn’t know anything about prophecy and only a tiny bit about hermeneutics. If I knew then what I know now, I would have realized just how poorly LaHaye’s arguments are constructed. Let’s focus just on the issue at hand: did Jesus predict that the hearers of his prophecy in Matthew 24 would see the fulfillment?
LaHaye answers that with an emphatic no. Through some hideously complicated eisegesis, LaHaye argues that “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 isn’t the hearers of Jesus’ message, but the generation alive when Israel is reformed as a nation. That happened in 1948. A biblical generation is around 30 years. Obviously, 1978 also came and went and LaHaye recognizes and addresses that problem. He says that “generation” refers to the length of the generation at the time in history when Israel reforms. People are living a lot longer nowadays and therefore 50 to 100 years from 1948 is the more likely timeframe.
Standard biblical hermeneutics teaches that the first consideration in understanding a passage is the audience to whom it is directed. Ask, “How would this audience have interpreted Jesus’ words?” And with that in mind, there is no other conclusion that you can possibly come to: Jesus meant that his hearers would see the fulfillment of his prophecy.
Again, since we are still here, that interpretation seems to present a serious problem for Christianity. After all, I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness because the founder of that organization made numerous failed prophecies. It would be a double standard to say that I reject a religion purporting the same basic message as Christianity on the basis of a failed prophecy by its founder if I excuse Christianity’s Ultimate Founder on his failed prophecy.
The trick is that Jesus isn’t a failed prophet. Let’s start at the beginning of the Olivet Discourse to find out why Jesus isn’t a failure. Read the rest of this entry
Daniel’s Seventy Weeks
Daniel’s famous seventy weeks prophecy not only predicts the coming of the Messiah, but the exact date of Jesus’ crucifixion. This prophecy also predicts an “abomination of desolation” in that same timeframe. Here’s the prophecy:
Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator. (Dan 9:24-27)
This is a seriously misunderstood passage. The folks in Tim LaHaye’s camp think that this refers to the Antichrist. Actually, it refers to the Messiah. Both Satanic forces and heavenly forces are in view and presented as having a hand in the events. However, the ultimate focus of the passage is Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and his actions are what LaHaye and his futurist school of thought gravely misunderstand. Indeed, they must for their interpretation to even work. Read the rest of this entry
New Material Up on God is NOT Imaginary!
I announced redoing God is NOT Imaginary a long time ago, and then just sat on it. Well, I finally got back into the swing of things and have updated four proofs:
- Proof 3: Look at All Historical Gods
- Proof 4: Think About Science
- Proof 8: Think About Near Death Experiences
- Proof 28: Notice How Many Gods You Reject
Looking at my old answers to those questions, I almost cringed. I’ve certainly grown as an apologist and philosopher since I wrote those old answers. The one for proof 3, for example, was absolutely terrible. I literally proved nothing, and I certainly didn’t answer the charge put forth in the original.
My answer to proof #8 was awful as well. What I said boiled down to, “They didn’t prove anything, so neither will I! Besides, NDEs aren’t biblical, therefore I don’t have to answer for them.” Man, I was a really bad apologist for the Christian faith when I first started. I’m glad I’ve grown, and I’m glad that God has shown me that there is more to the riches of knowing him than the intellectual side of things.
I’ve also gotten better at dissecting arguments from the other side, because GII’s argument in proof 3 is totally incoherent and I didn’t notice that the first time around. And proof #8’s conclusion, “NDEs are natural occurrences, therefore there is no spiritual dimension” is just silly to even argue. I didn’t notice that, either.
Good thing I’m doing the updates! I’m going to kill the old site officially, because it is really, really, bad! I’m seriously ashamed of it.
Slight Change in How We Do Things Here
Since no one reads pages on this blog (no, seriously, my About Us page is the most frequently viewed page and it averages one view per day on a monthly basis), I have decided to inform everyone of a slight change using the normal posts.
Effective immediately, I have decided to adopt the Welborn Protocol. This means that any blog-related communication sent to me at any of the e-mails listed in my Contact page is fair game for me to blog about unless you specifically tell me otherwise.
I think I pretty much have always followed this protocol, and I tend to assume that this is the case when I send e-mail related to a blog post directly to a blog owner unless directed otherwise. But I thought it was a good idea to make this explicit, just in case a question comes up later.
Back Rome Again 