Atheist Presents Gospel, Christian Exposes Unbelief

Apparently, the known atheists Christopher Hitchens sat down with the former ‘minister’ of the First Unitarian Church of Portland, Marilyn Sewell, for an interview. The discussion was based around Hitchens book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Interestingly, Hitchens describes himself through the words of Pascal, ‘in his Pensées, his great apology for Christianity—“so made that they cannot believe”,’ declaring he is one of the ‘10 percent of us (who) just never can bring themselves to take religion seriously.’ Though, he does not deny ‘religion as natural to humans’ or that ‘we do seem in the majority to have a tendency to worship, and to look for patterns that lead to supernatural conclusions,’ it would seem that he apparently believes he was created (or evolved) without equal proneness to such things within his own being. He notes, it’s not because of intellect, so must it be natural selection? I jest.

In question #4, Hitchens not only presents the gospel, but also exposes Sewell’s unbelief all in one sentence:

The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

From here, the interview seems to turn from Sewell asking Hitchens of his unbelief (atheism), to Hitchens further exposing Sewell’s unbelief of Christian theology and doctrine. Hitchens declares, ‘Paul says, very clearly, that if it is not true that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then we the Christians are of all people the most unhappy. If none of that’s true, and you seem to say it isn’t, I have no quarrel with you.’ Later, Sewell even shares, ‘I don’t know whether or not God exists in the first place, let me just say that…I choose to believe because—and this is a very practical thing for me—I seem to live with more integrity when I find myself accountable to something larger than myself.’

Hitchens does make a valid point regarding works, in that he says: ‘any good action by a religious person could be duplicated or matched, if not surpassed, by someone who didn’t believe in god,’ which focuses on the ‘works based salvation’ presented by many professing Christians. People, both of the saved and unsaved, do both good and bad works in the flesh, but the differences is that God also judges the motives (the heart) behind the works, and the faith and unbelief associated with them. So, although we can see persons do good deeds, even marvelous selfless acts of kindness, it does not, in and of itself, ensure them the immortality of heaven. Repentance of sin and faith in Christ does; though good deeds should not be absent, but flow forth from such quickening of the spirit (Ephesians 2:8-10).

In the interview, I can’t determine who deserves more remorse. The atheist who declares he was created without the ability to believe, or the professing Christian who claims she agrees not only with ‘almost everything’ the atheist says but while stating she takes the Scriptures seriously (and even reads her grandmother’s Bible), she isn’t sober enough to take it literally nor any of the teachings.

New Atheist Voice Against Christianity

'Yes my four year old daughter told me that the only person who would ever help her to be a good girl was Jesus Christ, because she could not do it on her own. I have never told her this. I would have thought this is too deep for a four year old to understand. That she was a sinner, she could not control her sinful nature. She wanted to be good but she could not, instead she did things that where wrong no matter how she tried to be good. Her theology is far deeper than that of many preachers today. I mean she gets it. It is only by the finished work of Christ on the cross that we can be delivered from sin.'

The above comes from the blog of a Christian mother doing her best to raise her four year old daughter with honest Biblical principles.

Sent to me by a friend, the reason I advertise this blog is for Christians to take a moment and read the responses by Atheists to this mother's post regarding the Christian faith and her child.

She gives a clear testimony of the forgiving, saving knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and many begin to claw and gnaw like rabid wolves against it. Sadly, many of them simply 'receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto [them]: neither can [they] know them, because they are spiritually discerned,' 'In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.'

Pray for them, both the Atheist and the Agnostic, but please realize that the voice of that spirit of antichrist is making its way across American and this whole world.

There is already a boasting of 'Why believe in a god?' campaign coming this year. 'The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday.'

Interestingly, at the same time unbelievers would have us (or like to) sensor our voice of praise and trust in Christ, so they don't have to hear it (and be convicted of sin?), their claim is '"We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you," said Fred Edwords.'

New Atheism, Antitheism, it is on the rise. Don't just sit there with your head in the sand Christian, 'Put on the whole armour of God' for the spiritual warfare is upon us more everyday.

Vox Day - The Irrational Atheist

Vox Day's book "The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens" is now available from Amazon.com, though he also has the download here.

I am thinking this should be an interesting read...

He is also the writer of:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/

Possible Misunderstanding Concerning "Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry"

I appreciate Austin Cline taking the time to read my blog post and posting his opinions concerning it at his blog. I do however believe there may have been a slight misunderstanding as to the thoughts he pulled forth from my posting though.

The title of my post was “Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry” whereas Austin Cline entitled his reply/rebuttal of such “Anti-Atheist Bigot Denying Own Bigotry”. Though my original thoughts were in reference to another blog entry entitled “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate”.

At the very onset of the topic “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate”, the writer begins their thought of bigotry as they see it from “many Republican campaigns” towards race, to sexual preference (called “anti-gay”, namely homosexuality), and atheism (called anti-atheist).

They make the notion that although bigotry of race is not tolerated whereas bigotry toward homosexuality and atheism is, for they state “I long for the day when anti-gay and anti-atheist bigotry will disqualify a candidate as quickly as racism.”

With that said, I simply made the obvious claim that, “First off, I would like to note the simple fact of the comparison made by the writer: Race (whether African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, etc.) is not the same type of issue as homosexuality and atheism. A person does not choose what race they are born into, whereas a person does make a spiritual decision to embrace atheism and a moral decision to embrace homosexuality.”

Austin Cline begins his post with “One of the more interesting tricks which bigots use to defend themselves is to admit that, yes, they are bigots — but so is everyone else, so why are you picking on me? Logically speaking this might be little more than the tu quoque fallacy: "you're doing it to, so you can't criticize me for it." Sometimes the bigot does go further, though, by arguing that bigotry is the natural human condition and shouldn't be condemned so forcefully.”

Whereas, if he would have continued to the end of my post he would have noted my words, “I just find it interesting that most of the time the one that uses the word bigot can be found to be one themselves if one would simply observe and listen to their message long enough.”

Since apparently Austin Cline seems to take my post (as he sites other comments) to mean, “Is it the case that bigotry isn't possible against choices, or that bigotry isn't possible against choices which a Christian deems to be sinful?” I thought I might elaborate a little here.

First, I would like to note that I never claim that [1] “bigotry isn’t possible against choice”, nor do I claim [2] “bigotry isn’t possible against choices which a Christian deems to be sinful” in my post. I indeed acknowledge there is indeed bigotry of such, for I said “I would agree that each of these groups can be dealt blows by hate speech and ungodly actions from without.”

As a Christian I am to hate sin (that of my own life, and that of another’s life) simply because Scripture teaches against such and the holy Almighty God is against such. Notice I said hate the sin, not the person from whom it flows. Therefore, concerning race, one is not to hate one simply because of their color nor should one simply hate the color itself therefore despising all of that particular race. Whereas hating the sin of homosexuality and/or unbelief is based in Scripture, from the very mind of God, which is not based on something one cannot change, but something they can. I cannot change my race, but I can decide whether to be hetero or homo sexual and whether a Christian or Atheist.

So, whereas a presidential candidate should not speak out against race (for no race is sinful within itself nor can it be changed), their stance against the blatant acts of rebellion of homosexuality and atheism in the very face of their Creator, which cut against the conscience of the presidential candidates should not disqualify them as candidates. For are they not free to exercise their First Amendment rights as much as the Atheists who speak often openly bigoted thoughts against Theism? Would an Atheist disqualify an Atheist’s candidate who spoke as much concerning their views which boast against the thoughts of Theistic Americans?

The denial of presidential candidates to support homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and atheism as a popular belief is not “mak[ing] [a] law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” but simply a moral standard of such candidates of which governs their life. To require such to lay their moral standards aside to govern the people of the United States as president is absurd. There may be many things I do not like concerning the ideals of some candidates, but to claim they should be disabled to run merely for reason of which I disagree with them, would not the list continuously grow as to there would be no one able to run at all?

I fail to see how Austin Cline read my entire article and came away with, “If it isn't possible to be bigoted against a choice, then it isn't possible to be bigoted against a Christian — don't Christians make a choice to be Christian?”

I note, “The hype of the article seems to be that of “anti-atheist bigotry” mostly, but I believe I have discussed the topic of bigotry concerning theist/atheist belief concerning homosexuality before where I note, “Do we not notice that both sides (Christian and Atheist) hold strict contradicting views, which are intolerant of the other? It all comes down to faith vs. unbelief, and that is where our security lies.””

Austin Cline claims, “Besides, I've never heard any atheists say that a Christian is being a bigot for simply observing that, under traditional Christian theology, atheism or homosexuality is sinful.” But, truth be known, the atheist does not mind the Christian having such views in the privacy of his own house or his little church, but as soon as he makes his voice heard aloud or as in running for president the same instantly becomes a bigot by the very bigots (one that is stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own) that demand America change its policy on marriage and to remove God from all walks of life.

So, whereas Austin Cline asks “Which atheists, exactly, say this? I notice that Timothy Waldrop doesn't actually offer any quotes and Vjack's post certainly doesn't make any such statement.” I reply, keep looking for their words and speech are spread throughout the news, books, and blogsphere.

At the end of Vjack’s article, he states, “It is time for Americans to ask ourselves whether bigotry is a characteristic we desire in our leaders.”

Which is why I note, “An atheist candidate could be no less a bigot than a theist one. For the atheist is “stubborn and complete intoler[ant of the] creed, belief, or opinion” of the theist. Just as the Christian tells the atheist they may not believe in God and the homosexual they may live in sin unto themselves, though calling on them to repent, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle, so does the atheist tell the Christian to keep their beliefs of God, against non-belief and immorality in their churches and homes, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle.”

I do appreciate the fact that Austin Cline writes, “Presidential candidates who say they are theists aren't being bigoted and they aren't doing anything wrong. Presidential candidates who want to use their office to promote their theism or other religious beliefs are not necessarily engaged in bigotry (it's theoretically possible, depending upon what exactly they do), but they are at the very least violating the spirit of the First Amendment because being elected president confers upon a person specific civil authority, not any religious authority.”

However I do disagree with his thought that “Presidential candidates who want to use their office to promote their theism or other religious beliefs” “are at the very least violating the spirit of the First Amendment because being elected president confers upon a person specific civil authority, not any religious authority.”

Again, for the President to speak out against homosexuality and atheism is not “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; therefore, how can one be in violating the First Amendment? And for the record I did notice Austin Cline’s use of “the spirit of the First Amendment” which is usually based on the spirit within the one trying to make the words of the forefathers stand by their claim which most often it is not the case – which is why the letter of Jefferson is often quoted in conjunction with such, although letters are not U.S. documents such as the First Amendment is.

We see again the twisting of the tide of Austin Cline upon my post where he writes, “Here we have a more explicit statement of what appears to be Timothy Waldrop's position: everyone is a bigot, so what's the big deal if Christians are bigoted against atheists?”

My claim was never in favor of bigotry, of the Christian nor the Atheist, I merely noted the fact that bigotry (whether great or small) often lies within each of us.

Then Austin Cline continues down his slope of misunderstanding by stating, “If you pay attention, though, you'll find that Timothy Waldrop has contradicted himself. Waldrop originally admitted that bigotry against people because of their race is real and is wrong, but based on the definition he is using bigotry against race isn't possible — after all, race isn't a "creed, belief, or opinion."”

I did not say that bigotry against race was not possible, but that it was different than bigotry concerning homosexuality and atheism in the fact that one cannot change their skin but they can decide to change their lifestyle and beliefs.

As for Austin Cline’s question, “I'm not aware of any "judgment" which "Atheism" may be threatening against Christians — even if we accept as valid the treatment of atheism as an ideology or philosophy which should be capitalized, there are no atheist "judgments" against Christianity which Christians might in theory have to be worry about. The closest to this might be the assertion that Christianity is wrong, but I can't believe that's what Timothy Waldrop has in mind. ”

As concerning: “Atheists are scared of the judgment Christianity may bring upon them” Atheist are indeed scared that God (though they deny God, Christians know it is He who works through us) through Christianity could possible bring forth a spiritual revival within our nation thereby exposing all of the lies of Satan and ungodliness making it extremely difficult for one to live in open rebellion against the God of Heaven and the Scriptures. (**Not by force, but mere shame and conviction**)

As concerning: “Christians are scared of the judgment Atheism will bring upon them” Christians realize (or should) that if we continue to allow the god of this world to proceed as he has to rid the nation of God and that which is right, we will find ourselves sinking further into sin, and will soon been judged by the very wrath of God.

A Discussion of God/Christianity/Scripture with BT

Warning: This is lengthy.

---

Carried over from my posts here and here, we have the following from a commenter, named BT. BT’s comments shall be in red and my reply in green for this initial post. All commenters are welcome to freely give their thoughts. All I ask is that we try to stay to the topic without name calling and unnecessary verbal slurs, and try to show a little respect for each other’s view, even if we completely disagree. This is to be a discussion and not a war. Let it be noted that I am by no means a Bible Scholar, so what one will receive here is my honest beliefs. I would hope that is what we are given by each commenter.

Shall we agree, then, for the sake of a more focussed discussion, that we are discussing the Abrahamic god? (As an aside, if you have any insight into why that god is not referred to as the Mosaic or Adamic god I would genuinely appreciate your sharing it!)

I am not really sure, as to I don’t think I have ever called God, Abrahamic God. Scripture seems to say “God of Abraham” about 17 times, but it also has “God of Shem”, “God of Isaac”, “God of Nahor”, and it also says “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” a few times. Where do you usually hear this phrase? It could be that Abraham is noted as the father of us all in faith [Romans 4].

If you prefer we can even exclude (or not, your choice) the Islamic view of that shared deity; I don't know your background but I will freely admit that I am far less familiar with the Koran and Hadith than with the Torah, Talmud, Mishnah and Midrash, and less familiar with any of those than with the Christian versions of the Old and New Testaments.

There is no need to include, Allah, the god of the Muslims, because this god is not the same as the God of Scripture, nor do they see Jesus Christ as a Savior of mankind from sin.

Since we are agreed that the non-revelatory deist god is not relevant to our conversation, we have to speak of oral or written religious traditions. I don't think either of us is heir to a predominantly oral tradition; you are a Christian, and I am an atheist of Christian (specifically Roman Catholic) extraction.

Even where there are unwritten 'grace notes' such as the Catholic Assumption of Mary heading straight into Heaven, the Christian faith like its Judaic forebears is primarily based on a written scripture. The only question, especially if we're relying on translations, is which undeniable literal written word of God we're to go by.

Since I am Baptist, Scripture is our authority over oral tradition, therefore I find no support of a “Catholic Assumption of Mary” contained anywhere in Scripture, so I am a little unclear as why you write of it and include, “primarily based on a written scripture”.

I'm not a linguist or archaeologist either, and I'm only truly familiar with the English translations. My greatest lack is the gift of tongues, alas... I do have a number of English translations of the Holy Bible, though, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as several of the apocryphal gospels.

What I don't have is access to the mind of your god to let me know which translation to use. If you could please pray and ask your god which one we should work with I'd be grateful. Should your god have a preferred version I don't already own I'll be happy to purchase a copy so that we'll be conversing about the same text.

Just let me know which one you and He likes. Oh, and not to be forward or anything, but while you're discussing the subject I wonder if you'd suggest he actually straighten that issue out for everybody else as well? It certainly would help tone down the violence due to misunderstandings in a number of places around the world.

This is where I find more sarcasm than actual discussion. The study of translations and manuscripts evidence and Greek Texts, etc. is a very broad topic which covers much more information than I have in my limited knowledge of all that encompasses the topic. I have done some reading on the subject, but am far from being an expert of it. You are free to view my section on Bibles/Translations and I have other information on the side bar under “Variants of Silver?”. As for me, I use the King James Bible. What “violence due to misunderstandings in a number of places around the world” comes from Bible translations?

Where exactly are you going with this line of questioning? Or, what exactly are you asking of me?

---

From the other post, you had the following:

The characteristics normally ascribed to that god, alone - omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence - cannot logically exist together. Omnipotence is self-defeating; an omnipotent being cannot create a force which that same being cannot defeat, i.e. God can't make a rock so heavy even He can't lift it. Omniscience is incompatible with any power at all, because it includes the ability to foresee an action which can then be prevented, meaning the prophecy was invalid. Omnibenevolence, in conjunction with omnipotence and omniscience, is incompatible with the world containing needless suffering; a god which sees the suffering, is able to prevent it and does not do so is obviously not loving in any recognizable sense of the word, unless you are a particularly talented sado-masochist.

Omnipotence –Your question/statement, “God can't make a rock so heavy even He can't lift it.”

Maybe read this answer: “Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.

"What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess.”

Omniscience – Your problem, “incompatible with any power at all, because it includes the ability to foresee an action which can then be prevented, meaning the prophecy was invalid.”

I don’t quite follow your problem. Why does the ability to foresee an action, which can be prevented, invalidate prophecy? The ability to act in no way demands an act, does it? If so, why and/or how?

Omnibenevolence – Your problem, “in conjunction with omnipotence and omniscience, is incompatible with the world containing needless suffering; a god which sees the suffering, is able to prevent it and does not do so is obviously not loving in any recognizable sense of the word”.

Actually I had to look up this word, for I don’t believe I have ever heard it used before, so for the sake of others, the definition can be view here. I did find it interesting that it says, “As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.”

With that said, concerning your concern of a loving God, having the ability to see and stop suffering, but does not (at least not every time), how can God also be loving? Would that be a fair meaning of your question? Romans 8:28 says, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” Notice that it does not say, “all things are good”, but that “all things work together for good”. Notice it doesn’t say, “to the good of all”, but says, “for good to them that love God”. Yes, yes, I realize that bad things still happen to Christians. The issue is that it ultimately works out to their good and the good of others. One example is death. Death is the doorway for a Christian into a sinless, perfect, peace and rest without any sadness. It also moves others to consider their own souls and relationships with God and eternity, and how they interact with people each and everyday, etc.

I say suffering rather than evil because the doctrine of free will, which is the best answer theodicy has to offer, does not cover agentless suffering. In the specific case of the Abrahamic god, the distinction is largely superfluous, as most of the actions described as taken by the Abrahamic god in the sacred texts can only be described as deeply and directly malevolent. The unprevented agentless sufferings of humanity outside those texts are simply icing on the cake of disproving that notional omnibenevolence.

Freewill is a topic I usually find interesting, even when talking to Christians. One will argue freewill, demanding God allow mankind to make any and all decision in and of themselves without any (are merely initial or some influence by God toward salvation) direct persuading by God, yet when something bad happens (whatever each individual may deem as something bad enough God should have stopped) mankind demands that God should have withheld the freewill of the individual(s) which caused the incident to occur. Doesn’t that make us hypocritical? It is like saying, “Let me have my freewill, but limit their’s God.”

These are not new observations by any stretch of the imagination; the problem of suffering certainly predates Christianity and Islam, and probably Judaism but the archaeological record gets scarce that far back. Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians have been struggling to answer the paradoxes for near enough the entire time the faiths have existed, and have not yet been able to do so.

The inability to explain fully all or some of the paradoxes of Christianity in no way allows mankind to completely dismiss the clear teachings of Scripture and the observance of God Almighty as Creator. God has many attributes besides your mentioned, (Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnibenevolence) see here, and therefore they all work as one, not as individually contradicting each other. For example, God is love and merciful, but He is also holy and just. Scripture declares, God “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, but Scripture also declares that God punishes both the just and the unjust when we disobey. His love cannot override His holiness whereby He can accept sin. Christ is the atonement for sin, whereby one may be saved from unrighteousness unto righteousness.

In science, it is perfectly permissible for a theory not to explain everything; at this stage of our development it would be ludicrous to expect anything else. The best and most mature theories will explain an abundance of observable facts, and that is enough to make a theory credible but not useful; to be useful a theory must predict facts before they are demonstrated. A complaint many physicists have about string theory is that while it explains many things it has not yet provided any disprovable predictions. The theory of evolution by natural selection is an example of a theory which is both mature and useful, and not just for enraging creationists either.

What is not permissible is for a theory (or even a hypothesis) to be internally inconsistent or to directly fly in the face of the evidence. The technical term for a hypothesis that does that is false.

Why then are unexplainable paradoxes and/or full knowledge concerning God (the Superior Being, our Creator, which is high above the mental capacity of His creation) such a discount to Christianity, when you admit to the same issue with science? The lack of the ability to know all there is concerning God, in no way removes God, but simply acknowledges man’s finite intelligence of such matters. The Scriptures clearly give what we need to know of God and the Savior Jesus Christ for salvation. It completely gives saving knowledge, for the rest is just extra.