One’s Faults Are Not Another’s Excuse

As Christians, our beliefs and actions in regards to those beliefs, seem often called into question by those from without as well as those from within the church (and by church: I mean both the local congregation, and universally all who profess Christ). Once again, such relevant questions, which should cause us to examine ourselves, are brought to our attention by vjack at his blog: Atheist Revolution.

Vjack draws from the thought of another atheist blog, The Secular Thinker, who observes ‘as an atheist attending a Catholic college, noting that it was difficult to distinguish Catholic students from non-Catholics,’ and therefore poses the thought, ‘I know so many people who believe that the God of the Bible (which one?) actually exists, yet they break the 10 Commandments all the time. Honestly, if you believe this all knowing, all powerful, ever present being exists, then shouldn't you be doing everything you can to do what he/she/it says?’ From such thoughts, vjack declares, ‘nobody is perfect and that these students cannot be expected to never violate god's laws’ is not a good response to the rendered question, and further proposes that, ‘if one really believed that one's eternal soul was in jeopardy, wouldn't one be able to avoid breaking whatever version of the 10 Commandments one was taught?’

And, whether he realizes it or not, vjack’s conclusion is precisely the point every Christian and non Christian should take note of: ‘Observations like these lead many atheists, and more than a few Christians I suspect, to question the sincerity of the beliefs professed by some Christians.’

First, considering the Christian, the fact is many times we do not live up to the standard we profess to believe, wherein we draw the claim: ‘sola Scriptura – namely, that the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, is our final and solely infallible authority for faith and practice.’ [r] Vjack acknowledges (possibly somewhat sarcastically), there are those who profess Christ, but do not actually know Him nor are known by Him. There is also the realization that genuine Christians are not sinless (nor is any man, even by common consensus), nor will we be till we are glorified, but this does not excuse us from our responsibility to live a life according to the teachings and examples of Christ in Scripture. We must earnestly contend for the faith, by mediating on and obeying the Word of God in everyday life (both openly and in private), while finding ourselves quick to repent when we are found in error (i.e. sin).

Secondly, considering the non Christian, one is not justified by the failure of professing Christians to adhere to the teachings of Scripture through their actions in everyday life. Although, vjack declares the observation of professing Bible Believers often causes atheists ‘to question the sincerity of the beliefs professed by some Christians,’ the non Christian must realize that One’s Faults Are Not Another’s Excuse; meaning, though one may judge one’s fruit (as to claim one is not living as they profess to believe, which can be done both inside and outside Christianity), the authority and authenticity of Scripture is not and cannot be based on an individual’s lifestyle in conflict with it. Truth is not made null by one’s actions, but rather one’s actions are either justified or condemned by truth.

Thirdly, as considering an atheist, one should find it rather odd that any would assert that their belief/or non belief of Scripture is based on whether or not the professing Christian ‘walks the talk;’ for to be an atheist one expresses a denial of the existence of God (or gods), and therefore must also reject any trust in the written Word of God. So, any dismissal of Scripture based on the actions of a professing Christian appears to only be an excuse in search of justification of one’s lack of belief. For the unbelief comes not from the action of others, but from the heart of the one who does not accept God and Scripture as true. If Scripture be true, its truth is not based on man’s interpretation or actions, and therefore a professing Believer’s failure to adhere to Scripture in every detail does not and will not justify the sinner in his unbelief before God.

Atheist Proclaims Africa Needs God

Matthew Parris, of Times Online, describes his thoughts of returning after 45 years to his boyhood home in Africa. He shares that his current travels in Malawi has ‘renew[ed] [his] flagging faith in development charities,’ but also another belief he acknowledges having tried to remove completely from his life; for it ‘confounds [his] ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit [his] world view, and has embarrassed [his] growing belief that there is no God.’ He now confirms that he must confess, as ‘a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa.’

He freely admits, as Christianity has long affirmed, transformation will not come forth from ‘the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts’ alone. ‘Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.’ Though he denies the faith of salvation, he realizes ‘only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it.’

What a way to end my blogging for 2008, but with a Times Online article entitled, ‘As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God.’ This reminds me of Paul’s witness to King Agrippa in Acts chapter 25.

Agrippa said unto Paul, ‘Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.’
And Paul said, ‘I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.’

Take a moment to read his article.

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.

How One May View Miracles

It has been a while since I have visited an atheist’s blog I used to stop by more frequently, but today I decided to venture over to see what was new at Atheist Revolution. Today’s post is entitled ‘How Miracles Work’.

The author references the incident in Florida of the tractor-trailer which rear-ended a school bus carrying 21 children, where Frances M. Schee, age 13, was tragically killed.

The author (atheist) states: ‘Evidently, this is how miracles work. An innocent child dies and others survive.’

The Christian (Jim Yancey) states: ‘This was a tragedy, but it's also a miracle…We're lucky one person got out of there alive.’

So, How One May View Miracles seems to be the old half-full/half-empty glass of water thought. It is comparative in our nature to believe it was indeed a miracle of God, because ‘We're lucky one person got out of there alive,’ but seemingly just as easy to discount it as a miracle of God because ‘An innocent child dies and others survive.’

The author does ask a valid question, ‘What do you think the parents of the dead 13-year-old girl thought when they read your quote in the local paper, Superintendent?’ But only the parents themselves can answer that.

Now, according to the article and Atheist Revolution, the superintendent’s quotes were, ‘This was a tragedy, but it's also a miracle’ and ‘We're lucky one person got out of there alive.’

I don’t know the parents of Frances M. Schee personally, but I fail to see how they would have a problem with what Jim Yancey said. It was indeed a tragedy for the loss of Frances M. Schee, yet clearly a miracle that the other children were rescued.

I would also question the use of the quote ‘But not to save the sweet, innocent, 13-year-old little girl who died. God must have put her near the flames for a reason just like he made the truck driver use his cell phone at the perfect moment’ assumingly credited to James Horton by the writer of The Stubborn Curmudgeon. I searched, but could not find such a quote or reference to ‘(CITRA, Fla.) TSC Newswire’ where the quote apparently is sited from. Possibly the writer of the blog is making a point, and it is not actually the words of James Horton.

To discount the rescue to dwell on the loss seems overly trying to make a point that doesn’t hold water. I’ll return to my thought: It is comparative in our nature to believe it was indeed a miracle of God, because ‘We're lucky one person got out of there alive,’ but seemingly just as easy to discount it as a miracle of God because ‘An innocent child dies and others survive.’

It is quite normal for the spiritual to see the miracle and the natural to discount it.

Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry

Looking in the blog world of Atheism, again we have the use of the term bigotry. Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

Coming from the title “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate” we have a discussion of:

“Try to imagine what would happen if video got out in which one of the Presidential candidates used the dreaded "n-word." That campaign would be over in an instant. Why? Because that type of bigotry would not be tolerated and would be accepted by an overwhelming majority of the American people as grounds for disqualification. Unfortunately, other types of bigotry are not only accepted but are actually an important strategic component of many Republican campaigns. I long for the day when anti-gay and anti-atheist bigotry will disqualify a candidate as quickly as racism.”

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.

Now, I would agree that each of these groups can be dealt blows by hate speech and ungodly actions from without, but even this issue remains different concerning each. For a person to use the “n-word” (as noted by the writer) is a derogatory word used against the entire race or directly to the individual it is said to, whereas stating that Biblically speaking homosexuality is wrong and immoral and atheism makes one a sinner or lost is not the same type of speech.

Why do I say this? Because skin color is not something someone can change or needs to be repented of, whereas homosexuality and atheism is a rejection of the truth, thereby sin, and needs to be repented of to the holy, almighty God.

Now, back to the topic of the writer, they write, “And yet, bigotry directed at the secular and GLBT communities is not only acceptable but appears to be an intentional part (some would even say a central part) in the campaign strategies of many Republicans.”

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.”

Let’s face it, the atheist cry of bigotry is due to the idea that the presidential candidates wish to claim or promote their theistic beliefs. But, would they not be willing to embrace the candidate which claimed atheism over theism, and desired to rid the country of the “Pledge of Allegiance”, “In God We Trust”, “Moment of Silence”, and any other objectives atheists have presented to the courts of America?

Simple facts:

Theism says there is a God, therefore denies atheism.
Atheism says there is no God, therefore denies theism.

Christianity believes Scripture declares homosexuality a sin, therefore denies it is moral.
Atheism believes Scripture is not authoritative, therefore denies homosexuality is a sin.

Although Christianity and Atheism agree to a certain degree on some moral issues, the morality of Christianity and Atheism varies based on the authority given such, and to the ideas which pertain to each thought.

Again, “Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

I agree one should not be abused, hurt, etc. simply because of race, religion, or sexual choice, but the fact remains that each person is laced within their being with ideas which are “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

Trying to say “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate” would be simply removing every candidate from ever running for office.

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.

Atheists are scared of the judgment Christianity may bring upon them, just as the Christians are scared of the judgment Atheism will bring upon them.

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.

No Preaching Zone

Taking a glance over at Atheist Revolution, it appears that one may “Curb "door-to-door disciples" in your neighborhood!” by purchasing a “No Preaching Sticker ” or “"No Preaching Allowed" door plaque ” from Ring of Fire Enterprises.

Interesting…

Trying to Silence a Moment of Silence

According to the Dallas Morning News, “An atheist couple whose children attend a Carrollton-Farmers Branch elementary school have filed a complaint in federal district court arguing that the state's mandated moment of silence in public schools is unconstitutional.”

The claim is that one of their children was apparently asked to be silent for a “time for prayer” during the normal morning “moment of silence”.

Apparently the father also claims he doesn’t believe “there is any secular reason for a moment of silence” and that a moment of silence is just a way to allow prayer in school without calling it prayer. He asks the question, “Is there any study showing a moment of silence helps education?” But I would also ask if he has done any research to show that a moment of silence hurts education.

I fail to understand why this couple would like us all to believe that a moment of silence is synonymous with prayer. That is simply not the case. How often do we take moments of silence throughout our daily lives, even Christians, and it is not spent praying but considering what we are to do next, examining something we are working on, or simply just taking a break?

The law apparently states that one is free to “reflect, pray, meditate or engage in any other silent activities” during the moment of silence, but it seems the only requirement is to remain silent to keep from disturbing others that may be taking part in reflecting, praying, meditating, or engaging in any other silent activates.

What I find most interesting is, atheists claim they do not believe God exist and do not believe prayer does a single thing, then why such a fight against a moment of silence whereby the student is free to ponder any thoughts they seem right in their own eyes?

The father, Mr. Croft has apparently said, "I don't want my children exposed to people telling them the supernatural is real." Oh, but it is okay for all other children to be denied a moment of silence and to be told God is not real?

"I completely reject Judeo-Christian monotheism,” says Mr. Croft, and thus the matter is settled: It is clear this has little to do with the Constitution or a moment of silence, and more about his personal rejection of God.

I am glad the one Trying to Silence a Moment of Silence has been silenced: Federal Court Upholds Texas Moment of Silence Law, Allowing Students to Pray or Meditate

Atheism Goes To First Church

I know most anyone in the South has seen a sign labeled with First Baptist Church, but have you ever noticed a sign for the First Church of Atheism?

Motto: “With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.”

Purpose: “As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.”

I did find it most interesting the terminology used in their statement of unity, per se: “The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.”

Christians have been ridiculed plenty of times by Atheists claiming Atheism has no belief system, but according to the First Church of Atheism, they (at least this church) do have a one thing binding based on “belief in science, reason, and reality.”

Further evidence of a belief system (again, at least this church) is their statement, “We believe that everyone should have the right to preach what they believe, to start a congregation, and to perform ceremonies. This is usually reserved for members of traditional religious sects. We have started a church of our own, based on our beliefs, and will provide our service of ordainment free to anyone who shares our beliefs.”

And one more statement, “A church is defined as an association of people who share a particular belief system. So yes, a church of atheism can really exist.”

Please, let us not have the same old argument about what “belief” means, for I will allow an Atheist to speak for themselves. Click here for one’s own thoughts concerning this First Church of Atheism. Their review appears to be honest, thorough, and insightful.

Interestingly, I have heard loud and clear the sound of “separation of church and state” from among the Atheists, so I can’t help but ponder do they feel the same when it comes to the ideas of the First Church of Atheism? To submit one’s information to be reviewed and to be ordained as one of their ministers, one must check the box which says, “I agree to promote atheism, and the ideals of rational thinking.”

Is this the same as the critical fuss about Christians so-called proselytizing? Or, is this supposed to be a promotion of atheism without actually expecting anyone to convert to it? How so shall it be promoted?

Atheism or Anti-Theism Taught In The Classroom?

We seem to hear a lot about “separation of church and state” and about how we need to keep religion and Christianity to ourselves or in the privacy of our own homes, but interestingly Scholastic would like to introduce the concept of The Golden Compass: Language Arts Lessons & Activities to our children through their teachers.

Check out the advertisement:
[http://content.scholastic.com/browse/unitplan.jsp?id=284]

---

Welcome Teachers! We hope you enjoy this language arts program featuring The Golden Compass, the soon-to-be-released film based on the multi-award-winning novel by Philip Pullman. You’ll find turnkey, skill-building materials on symbolism and characterization that help students understand the relevance of literary themes in their lives. The lessons and activities, while connected to the book and film, can be taught independently to supplement any language arts curriculum.

---

Here are some SparkNotes concerning the book:
[http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/hisdarkmaterials/summary.html]

Now, let’s recount what the author said himself about these books:
"My books are about killing God"

So, let me ask…

We should not allow the teaching of how great God is in school, but the reading and teaching of the “symbolism and characterization” of killing God should be allowed?

Is this because the Scriptures are a work of fact, and His Dark Materials are a work of fiction?

Filling the Void

In a recent blog post, the writer suggests, by the title “Saying Goodbye to Your Imaginary Friend,” that persons should turn away from believing in God.

The claim is through childhood, children may easily develop beliefs that fictional characters and invisible friends are somewhat true, since their ability to perceive fact and fiction is greatly less than adults. Although, as a child grows and matures, they begin to see the line between fact and fiction in somewhat of a new light, realizing that some things they considered to be fact are but fictional, and some things they considered to be fiction are actually factual.

It is here that the writer would like to assume that Christianity is merely made of adults who are unable to say goodbye to childhood fantasy, without Filling the Void with another fantasy, namely a mythical being we call God. Interestingly, throughout time man has also filled science with cases of unexplainable fantasy, only to later replace fantasy with more fantasy, or sometimes even having to come to terms with the fact that they simply believed fictional thinking. Some may wish to claim that science merely corrects itself, and man continues to question it, but I can’t help but ponder is it all just Filling the Void of their childhood fantasies, as they say Christianity is.

It seems there is a failure to understand, in their own examples, how a doctor can both pray to God for wisdom and healing, but also use the technology God has allowed our generation to have. Why can one not accept it is completely acceptable for an Engineer to both use the proper tools to design and construct a building, as he also prays to God asking for wisdom and blessing upon his work? Why can the writer not understand, there need not be one without the other?

In closing the writer claims, “as adults, it is time for us to say goodbye to the remnants of a long-ago childhood, and embrace a godless, free-spirited future with logic, rationality and passion as our steering wheel.”

In questioning such a thought, I simply asked, “But what exactly do people turn to, when they turn away from God? It is not always "logic" or "rationality," for sometimes it is merely for a "passion" to do that which they know God has commanded not to.”

The writer’s response was, “This is a question I was faced with when I became an atheist. I guess everyone has to find an answer to fill in that void.

Some turn to sports, others turn to science, and depending on your passion, there is always something concrete to hold onto, till life ceases to exist no more.”

So, we have adults which turn away from God, which sent His Son Jesus Christ to forgive sinners of sin, to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, turning to sports, science, and to any other thing which fulfills the lusts of one’s passions. These things are not concrete, nor do they give one comfort in the moment of death, nor through times of struggle, hurt, or need. They are simply a temporal, man-made solution in hopes of Filling the Void. They are unable to fulfill mankind’s eternal need of Christ dwelling in us as Lord and Saviour.

Interestingly, one does not need to turn away from God to enjoy sports, or some of the things science has given us. There is also no reason to hold back one’s prayers and thanksgiving toward God, for what He has given us to enjoy and use to make our lives better. Physical man-made things, regardless of how grand they may appear, cannot fill the spiritual void within mankind’s being. To believe one can fill that gap with fleshly entertainment and wisdom is merely missing the mark, not Filling the Void. The void remains with a superficial covering which must be continually maintained and/or replaced with a new one.

Most, if honest, would confess that the point at which they turn their backs on God, is because they refuse to adhere to His Word: Loving the sin over the Savior. Denying sin as sin, merely acknowledging they may do some things wrong, people falsely believe they are removing themselves from their accountability to a holy, sinless God. Why deny one’s sins, when our great God has made provision through Christ, that it may be forgiven thee? Simply turn to God, repent of your sins, put faith in the work of Christ, whereby you may be saved and cleansed.

In salvation, one has Jesus Christ Filling the Void, for in turning one’s back on God, the void yet remains.

An Atheist’s Fantasy of Killing God

Verified at snopes.com, coming this December 2007, is a movie entitled The Golden Compass.

Origins: “The film is based on (released in the U.S. as The Golden Compass), the first offering in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy of children's books, a series that follows the adventures of a streetwise girl who travels through multiple worlds populated by witches, armor-plated bears, and sinister ecclesiastical assassins to defeat the oppressive forces of a senile God.”

Snopes also notes, “The series' author, Phillip Pullman, is an avowed atheist who has averred that "I don't profess any religion; I don't think it's possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words 'spiritual' or 'spirituality.'" Critics of Pullman's books point to the strong anti-religion and anti-God themes they incorporate, and although literary works are subject to a variety of interpretations, Pullman left little doubt about his intentions when he said in a 2003 interview that "My books are about killing God." (Conservative British columnist Peter Hitchens labeled Pullman "The Most Dangerous Author in Britain" and described him as the writer "the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed.")”

Bill Donohue, president of The Catholic League, has said: “Look, the movie is based on the least offensive of the three books. And they have dumbed down the worst elements in the movie because they don't want to make Christians angry and they want to make money. Our concern is this, unsuspecting Christian parents may want to take their kid to the movie, it opens up December 7th and say, this wasn't troubling, then we'll buy the books. So the movie is the bait for the books which are profoundly anti-Catholic and at the same time selling atheism.”

“Other critics, however, have described Pullman's works as being more generally anti-religion rather than specifically anti-Christian or anti-Catholic: In "His Dark Materials," Pullman's criticisms of organized religion come across as anti-authoritarian and anti-ascetic rather than anti-doctrinal. (Jesus isn't mentioned in any of the books, although Pullman has hinted that He might figure in a forthcoming sequel, "The Book of Dust.") His fundamental objection is to ideological tyranny and the rejection of this world in favor of an idealized afterlife, regardless of creed. As one of the novel's pagan characters puts it, "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling."”

I guess this is just: An Atheist’s Fantasy of Killing God.

Christopher Hitchens : Militant Atheist?

“Myers says Hitchens wasn't noticeably drunk, so he doesn't have his usual excuse for inexcusable behavior, such as in this previous instance. In any event, such antics are the logical extension of his increasingly warlike thought. This ex-Trotskyist, whose support for militant secularism led him to idolize the founder and first commander of the Red Army, has gone so over the top with his crusade against all religion that he has come to advocate wiping out entire populations. "Demolish it!" he said, when asked about Iran – with apparently no more moral compunctions about the slaughter of the innocent than one might normally exhibit toward a swarm of midges.”

“Hitchens is quite clearly marketing himself as a contemporary Robert Ingersoll, the spokesman for atheism and secularism in the English-speaking world, although, clearly, looking at the bestseller list, he has a lot of competition for that title. If someone with that kind of a public platform should use his status to spread and popularize the suggestion that it's a good idea to kill off the world's Muslims, then we, as a society, are poisoned by his prominence. Decent people cannot allow it.”

You may read the article and decide for yourself here: http://antiwar.com/justin/

Humanist Draws Line Between Atheism and Anti-theism

“While atheism is the lack of belief in any god, anti-theism means actively seeking out the worst aspects of faith in god and portraying them as representative of all religion. Anti-theism seeks to shame and embarrass people away from religion, browbeating them about the stupidity of belief in a bellicose god.” - Greg M. Epstein

Would this not mean that there are atheists, and then there are atheist extremists, aka anti-theists?

As in many atheists’ blogs which I have seen (not all), there has been the use of terms such as moderate Christians and Christian extremists (labeled as fundamentalists). In following suit, there must also then be moderate Atheists and Atheist extremists. For there is the atheist which lives their life with a “lack of belief in any god”, then there is the atheist which appears to actively spend their life speaking, writing, blogging, and ranting against every religious thing that takes place.

The definition of moderates seems to be, they may concern themselves with belief or lack of, but do not interpose their beliefs onto others.

So we are left with the Christian extremists asking the Atheist to, “repent of your sin and believe in Christ for salvation”, and the Atheist extremists asking the Christian to, “turn away from Christianity and believe no longer in God.”

You just have to love the labeling system....

Does Unbelief Take Faith

Over at another blog, an atheist says, Atheism Does Not Require Faith.

The Claim: “I can count on finding at least a few stories in either the mainstream media or various theist-generated sources claiming that atheism is a religion or that atheism requires as much faith as any religion.”

The Rebuttal: “An atheist is someone who does not accept the theistic claim (i.e., a god or gods exist). Like the "agnomist," the atheist requires no faith because he or she is not offering any sort of belief claim. In fact, it is precisely the tendency to seek evidence rather than to rely on faith that typically leads one to atheism.”

---

I left the following comment:

“Maybe the faith spoken of, is not so much that you do not believe in God, but the faith to believe in the evolution of everything from a big bang (or other choice besides God); therefore, claiming you have faith in what you believe, not in what you claim not to believe.I understand, you may claim that there is evidence and/or degrees of probability, for the big bang (or other choice besides God), but without absolutes, one is still left with making a choice that is based (whether great or small) on "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", which is the biblical definition of faith.

So, I am not sure if most are saying that an atheist is exercising faith when they deny God, but when they believe/trust/hope (or other choice word) in something else, such as the big bang, etc.

For even in atheism, one is saying, "I don't believe in that", but "I do believe in this."”

---

I believe there may be some confusion (maybe somewhat on both sides) when it comes to an issue of faith vs. unbelief. I don’t think we can actually say it takes faith to not believe in something, have it be God, “gnome[s], unicorns, fairies, Santa Claus, Odin, angels, or gods”.

The faith arises not from the denial of God as our Creator, but in the acceptance (belief/hope/trust) of something else, whether the big bang or another cause, as man’s creator (or starter of creation).

Do I believe atheists exercise faith? I sure do, just not in their denial of God. I believe, when atheists believe (by teaching, writing, saying) mankind has come from the evolutionary chain, birthed by the big bang, which still fails to hold absolute proof, it is exercising faith in "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Pink Is Their Color

A rare pink dolphin has been seen in the waters of “in Calcasieu Lake, an estuary just north of the Gulf of Mexico in southwestern Louisiana.”

Here are some pictures. [Link]

“There is a species of pink dolphin that lives in the Amazon River in South America, but this one appears to be a more common bottlenose dolphin.”

"It appears to be an uncanny freak of nature, an albino dolphin, with reddish eyes and glossy pink skin," the Web site reads. "It is small in comparison to the others it is traveling with and appears to be a youngster traveling with mama."

---

Does this mean there could be merit to the “Invisible Pink Unicorn”?

Does One Really Wager Everything

Recently a blog posted their version of “Pascal's D--n Wager: Sidestepping Reason and Rational Thinking”.

They present the following:

---

To summarize, Pascal wager states two major suppositions:

1. If you believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

2. If you do not believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to hell, your loss is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

---

They also posted this:

---

The mathematical calculations are as follows:

	God exists (G)	God does not exist (~G)
Living as if God exists (B)	+∞ (heaven)	−N (none)
Living as if God does not exist (~B)	−∞ (hell)	−N (none)

---

The problem I found was with their assumptions. They have hence *amended their original post, in stating: “Mathematically speaking, using the parameters as set by Pascal, Pascal's Wager (based on playing on the safe side of belief) is a bet based pretty much on common sense and a great dose of pragmatism: Regardless whether God exists or not, you do not stand to lose everything.”

The original did not contain, “Mathematically speaking, using the parameters as set by Pascal.” Nevertheless, the idea of “Regardless whether God exists or not, you do not stand to lose everything” does not follow the reasoning behind, “Pascal wager states two major suppositions” presented by the blog author.

As posted at their blog, I present why I believe the statement, “Regardless whether God exists or not, you do not stand to lose everything” is without warrant, and against reason and logic concerning the presentation of Pascal’s Wager in their writing.

---

Based on Pascal's Wager, in fact, as you present it, you do have the "chance" that "your loss is infinite".
----------

1. If you believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

You don't believe in (1), so you don't get (i) and (ii) wouldn't matter. You are betting on (ii), hoping (i) isn't true. 1/1 50% wager, whereas a Christian is 100% either getting heaven or getting nothing.

----------

2. If You do not believe in God:
i. If God exists, you go to hell, your loss is infinite.
ii. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

You do believe in (2), you definitely do not want (i), and (ii) wouldn't matter. You are betting on (ii), hoping (i) isn't true. 1/1 50% wager, whereas as a Christians gets 100% escaping hell or getting nothing.

----------

Basically you are wagering an eternity of hell ("your loss is infinite") on whether God exist or not, when you say, "You do not believe in God". So, in fact, "you [do] stand to lose everything".

* Originally wrote "corrected".

Richard Dawkins’ “Scarlet Letter”

When I was growing up, we had to read and watch the story entitled, The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, published in 1850.

In this story, “The scarlet letter "A" represents the act of adultery that she has committed and it is to be a symbol of her sin for all to see.” “She will not reveal her lover’s identity, however, and the scarlet letter, along with her public shaming, is her punishment for her sin and her secrecy.” “Dimmesdale, leaving the church after his sermon, sees Hester and Pearl standing before the town scaffold. He impulsively mounts the scaffold with his lover and his daughter, and confesses publicly, exposing a scarlet letter A seared into the flesh of his chest.” “When Hester dies, she is buried in "a new grave near an old and sunken one, in that burial ground beside which King's Chapel has since been built. It was near that old and sunken grave, yet with a space between, as if the dust of the two sleepers had no right to mingle. Yet one tombstone served for both." Even though the tombstone was decorated with a letter "A", the text does not indicate whether Hester is buried next to Dimmesdale or Chillingworth.”

So my question is this. Why did Richard Dawkins choose this similar marking to be the mark of his "The OUT Campaign" for Atheists?

“The Scarlet Letter attained an immediate and lasting success because it addressed spiritual and moral issues from a uniquely American standpoint.”

Is this the point that Dawkins is trying to make? Is Atheism a “spiritual and moral” issue? I highly doubt it, since I have been told Atheists do not believe in spirits [the supernatural] or morals [relative with no absolutes]. I am not saying that Atheists cannot or do not act moral, as to what they consider to be right and wrong, but their idea of morals is somewhat different than Christians. *If I am wrong, please correct me.*

As for Christians, we do see this as a “spiritual and moral” condition, as we do also from the story of adultery in Hawthorne’s book. I realize Atheist starts with the letter ‘A’, but to also color it red and have it posted completely noticeable across the chest, I can’t help but ponder if there is more meaning behind the choice. Maybe the meaning has already come about; please share with me the story behind the mark. Note I am not comparing Atheism with Adultery, for it is not I who has chosen the scarlet letter ‘A’, which already carried the meaning.

So, why do I consider this a “spiritual and moral” issue?

1. A person that does not put their faith in Jesus Christ is spiritually dead. Meaning they are a lost person in need of the Savior.

2. A person that does not believe in God is immoral in this point, for God’s law has said that we are to love Him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and might.

The ‘A’ might as well stand for “that spirit of [A]ntichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

---

I am thinking about printing myself up some of these... Any orders?

or

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.

Would a World with God or Without God Look the Same?

In my latest blog post [Faith vs. Unbelief], a commenter posed this statement, “A world with a deistic "god" looks exactly the same as a world without one.”

I have pondered this thought, and even posed the question, “What do you base this thought on?”

I received no answer from the original commenter, but another commenter added to the same thought, “A universe with a deistic god is indistinguishable from one with no god at all; that being the case, the deistic god can neither be proven nor disproven, nor is it useful in any way for explaining why the universe is the way it is.”

So now we have the idea from two persons that:
1. A world [universe] with God would look [be indistinguishable] like a world [universe] without God.
2. God can not be proven or disproven, and is not useful to explain why the universe is the way it is.

I would just like to consider this thought here, and there is a lot of other thoughts left waiting on that post that I would like to get to this week, hopefully.

As a Christian, it is no secret that I believe the Scriptures when it comes to things such as God and creation. As a Christian, I must conclude that God is the Creator of all that is. I understand that there are Christians that believe in the literal account of Genesis, young earth, old earth, and some that hold to evolution. Though there are some differences, the common theme is that God is the Creator. So, for a Christian, there is no way to think or speak of the current thought, “A world with a deistic "god" looks exactly the same as a world without one.” For if there is no God, there is no world; therefore, there would be no world without God to compare to a world with God.

As an Atheist (I believe the commenters to be), I can’t help but ask what point or logic does this statement mean to them? What I mean is, if one does not believe in God (or gods) and that this world simply is by itself (by whatever means it has come about, but without a Creator), how can it be compared to what a world would be if created by God?

Since two different commenters made the same claim, I can’t help but ask for more insight to the thoughts of such a claim.

Also, I ponder the second commenter’s addition, in that “the deistic god can neither be proven nor disproven, nor is it useful in any way for explaining why the universe is the way it is.”

Does this mean that, if accepted, there is indeed a Creator (God), that He would be unimportant concerning our thoughts surrounding creation, or that just acknowledging Him as Creator would not in and of itself answer all of the questions regarding all there is to know about how the entirety of everything works?

Honestly, this statement, “A world with a deistic "god" looks exactly the same as a world without one” means little to a Christian, since we believe without God there would be nothing created.

As an Atheist, or the two original authors, please help me understand what you mean by the statements and how a comparison could ever be made, if we are actually living in either a world [universe] created by God or we are not, and have no way to experiencing the other.

Again, I hope to slowly, but surely cover the other points raised in the other posts, so let’s try to stay on this one thought here.

Faith vs. Unbelief

What I have recently learned on my blog while speaking to Atheists:

1. Acceptance of science’s theory of evolution is not belief that it is actually true, but merely holds that it is the best theory science has. The word “consensus” is used, meaning “opinion”, which cannot be used as authoritatively fact.

2. Science has not/can not prove there is no God (some assume because it is a negative), because He is out of the natural realm.

3. Science cannot prove there is a God, because He is out of the natural realm.

4. To science, God is non testable, because “The idea of a supernatural explanation (i.e. god) is not even considered, because science cannot test or falsify supernatural explanations. They are outside the bounds of science.”

5. Science does not work with absolutes, so all is relative to current knowledge which may change at any given time due to new evidence overwriting old evidence, or “consensus”, meaning “opinion”.

6. I am not to use science to prove there is a God, because science is evidence and fact not belief and faith.

With even this little bit of “consensus” I have gleaned from some of the Atheists comments from my blog, it clearly shows we merely return to the Scriptures context of Faith vs. Unbelief.

When it comes to God, there is either Faith or Unbelief. Science has no apparent voice, authority, or opinion of God, for He is “outside the bounds of science”.

Now before someone jumps at the word “unbelief”, any honest Atheist must adhere to its definition and admit that in fact they hold to “unbelief”.

Unbelief: “the state or quality of not believing; incredulity or skepticism, esp. in matters of doctrine or religious faith.”

Scripture declares, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Be forewarned that, “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

Neither are you who say that you believe in God, but refuse to repent and accept Christ as Lord and Savior of your life by faith, safe, for even, “the devils also believe, and tremble.”

There must be Faith, for it is written, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

There is no more security in science for any to assume, by its inability to prove God is not, or in oneself by the inability to physically see or completely understand the things of God, to hold to a personal opinion that God does not exist.

It simply boils down to a personal choice of Faith or Unbelief.

I would ask that you, “repent ye, and believe the gospel”.

What then is the gospel?

1 Corinthians 15

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.