Blog Archives
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 Therefore, the text is no longer in effect.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.
Atheists: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?
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.
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.
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.
Atheist Double Standard
My laugh for today is this comment, from a reader who identifies himself as Steve:
How in God’s name are you going to publish a book? You work in fast food and don’t have the credentials or credibility to even think about a book. It’s almost insulting to the people who have spent much time and money in their education and relevent [sic] work experience. You can’t just say “I’m going to write a book” There are prerequisites.
I have to wonder if this guy would have said the same thing to a fashion editor publishing on the history of religion (Christopher Hitchens), an evolutionary biologist publishing on philosophy (Richard Dawkins), or someone with a high school education becoming a fellow of an academic think-tank (Tom Verenna, aka Rook Hawkins).
Atheists, when they publish, are granted free license to write about any topic they so choose. As long as it serves the name of atheism or anti-theism, they are granted credibility by their audience of admirers whether they have it or not.
The site that I’m answering in my proposed book, God is Imaginary, is allegedly written by Marshall Brain, founder of HowStuffWorks.com. According to Wikipedia, Brain has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a master’s in computer science. This qualifies a person to maintain websites debunking religion? Yet, that site is often referred to as a resource for debunking Christianity by many atheists online. The site has a credibility that it should not have.
As academic layman in the category of religion, Brain and I are equals. No one would take on these sites from the academic community because they aren’t argued from an academic perspective. Having an academic, such as William Lane Craig, I take on these sites would be overkill. Therefore, I’m the perfect candidate to write a rebuttal, since I am an academic layman also.
What happens if the credibility factor does become a problem, and agents and publishers reject the proposal based on that? No problem, I have other writing projects that I am working on at the moment where credibility isn’t a problem. I can always try again with this proposal in a few years, when I will have the academic credibility.
That said, I would like to welcome long-time reader John C back! I hope that you find this blog more to your liking. I promise not to focus so much on Rey’s replies, as I should be taking on the best arguments from the other side, not the worst arguments from our own.
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.
The Beattitude Says That the Bible Commands Christians to Kill Unbelievers
This is one of the ten most viewed posts of all time. To read all ten, download this free e-book.
Imagine my surprise when I found this post in my list of the most popular posts of the moment. A skeptic who goes by the moniker “The Beattitude” posts a few verses that seem to indicate that the Bible commands us to kill unbelievers. I suppose that commands like that make him nervous, being an unbeliever himself he doesn’t want to end up a bloody smear under a pile of rocks.
I can confidently say that that is not going to happen, because the commands given were directed at the ancient Israelites under the Mosaic Law, which is not in force anymore.
But moreover, I’ve refuted this crap already. Don’t atheists pay attention to what Christians say? That would be a lot of effort, and of course the fact that reasonable replies exist to their charges would shatter their comfortable God-less worldview.
Atheist Renounces Atheism
British writer and avowed atheist A.N. Wilson, author of Jesus: A Life, has recently annouced that he is returning to his Christian faith.
This is exciting news, and what I hope is the herald of other similar conversions. I think that it would be very glorifying to God if he drew several avowed atheists to himself, especially public figures like Wilson.
Welcome back to the family of God, Mr. Wilson!
Back Rome Again 