Finding Truth Today - Blog

Why Do I Believe?

The other day I made the following comments on a YouTube video;

 

The Bible was written over a period of roughly 2,000 years by 40 different authors from three continents, who wrote in three different languages.

 

And one of its most remarkable qualities is the complete unity of the overall message despite having so many different authors writing over many centuries on hundreds of controversial subjects.

 

The unity of Scripture demonstrates its supernatural inspiration. Only the one true, holy God could provide us with such a flawless Bible that reveals such a matchless message: the Lord’s staggering love for His creation.

 

trajaen534 sent to me an email via Facebook wanting me to say in my own words what makes me believe those comments. trajaen534 holds that what I quoted; “has not been established as fact or most probably true scientifically, historically, or in any way, or there would be no debate.. you know of inconsistencies and errors in the Bible,” as he went on to say; “you know it isn't inerrant so why make such claims you can't back up?”

 

trajaen534 went on and asked: “Tell me in your own words why you think this is even remotely true let alone believable.* Have you read the Bible yourself? It's not all literally true is it..?”

 

Basically trajaen534 is asking me a very good question, “Why do I believe?”

Why would anyone believe something that’s not been clearly established? If the Bible was as trajaen534 states, has not been established as fact or most probably true scientifically, historically, or in any way, there would be no debate about someone not believing in what it says. If the Bible is as trajaen534 says, it would be foolish for anyone to believe anything the Bible has written in it.

 

However if one actually researches the facts about the Bible, one finds that it is very much established as confirmed scientifically, historically, archeologically, biologically, through astronomy, physics, and even has eyewitnesses for many of the events. And to date, no one has ever brought forth a contradiction in the Bible or an error in the original language manuscripts that if even the slightest research made on it, confirms that it is actually a contradiction or error. Also, the New Testament has stronger manuscript support than any other classical literature from Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar and Tacitus.

 

I have read the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is a world best seller and no other book has ever out sold it. It is the bloodiest book in all history with many of its writers death resulting from their work on it and forfeiting their lives for their believes in it. The Holy Bible is also the most precious book on earth giving to us in its New Testament the good news of Jesus Christ who with His blood, freely paid the price for your and my sins so that if only we place our faith in Him, that we will be saved from our sins for ever and ever. The Holy Bible tells us of God’s great love for us and of His wanting us to choose to love Him.

 

If you are interested, here’s a starting point for you to learn more about the Bible: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1352&context=lts_fac_pubs http://thebibletrial.org/resources.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/look-at-the-canon
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n2/unity-bible
http://www.biblequery.org/bible.htm
and my website: http://findingtruthtoday.org/faq.htm

 

What is it that I believe?

It wasn’t but within the last five years that I actually researched how well the Bible is supported and confirmed. Yet just because the Bible is a world best seller with no other book outselling it and is confirmed by eye witnesses, science, astronomy, biology, archeology, etc. and the fact that there are no contradictions or errors in it doesn’t make what is written in the Bible true. Nor does this make me believe what is written in it is true. It does however create a great foundation that helps me believe that what is written in the Bible is true.

I’m guessing trajaen534 is thinking that my belief is in the Bible. My belief is not in the Bible per se although I do believe without any doubt that what is written in the Bible is factual and true.

 

I believe in the promises that God has made to us that He told to us that are found in the Bible.

 

But the ultimate question to me by trajaen534 is; Why do I believe?

From the Old Testament Genesis the first book of the Bible including each and every book (66 books in all) through the New Testament Revelations the last book of the Bible, we see man’s repeated rebellion against his holy Creator. God made a perfect world, but mankind has continually rejected God’s authority and sought to decide truth for himself. Nevertheless throughout each of the 66 books of the Bible, God promised to extend His love, grace, and mercy to unworthy people (including you and me) who deserved to be cast into the lake of fire for all eternity. I fully have faith in God and trust God will fulfill all that is written in the Bible.

 

The most simplistic answer as to why I believe is that I believe because of the drastic change that transpired in my life after I made the choice to really accept Christ Jesus as full payment for my sins and allowed Him to direct my life instead of me directing my life. The personal relationship that I have with Christ Jesus radically changed the direction of my life 180 degrees from when I didn’t allow Him direct my life to currently where I am totally aware that I’m unable to live without Him.

 

Saying that I Accepted Jesus

I first accepted Jesus Christ as my savior when I was eleven years old however going into my mid adolescence I did not at all times act as a Christian which means that in reality, I did not act at all like a true Christian. I was a hypocrite in my thoughts and actions and it lasted from my mid adolescence to later into my adult life. Although I said that I had accepted Jesus Christ, I did not allow Him to lead me in my life choices thus I didn’t really accept Him at all as I continued to do what I wanted to do instead of what God wanted me to do. So really, I didn’t truly accept Christ Jesus as I did not allow Him into my life. (1 Timothy 4:1-12)

 

Even though I knew and understood what I was doing was wrong and against Jesus' teachings, I did it anyway just because I wanted to do it. I wanted to do it because I enjoyed doing what I wanted to do when I wanted to do it and how I wanted to do it. I wanted to do what I wanted to do when I wanted to do it how I wanted to do it and that’s what I did. I did not listen to anyone’s advice and I didn’t follow Christ Jesus’ teachings as I knew what it was I wanted to do. Anyone else’s direction especially Christ Jesus’ did not fit in with how I wanted to live. So I did what I wanted to do whether or not it hurt someone or not because I at that time did not care about anyone but me; I did not even care about God’s will for me. I just wanted to do and did whatever it was I wanted to do because I could do it and because I wanted to do it how I wanted to do it without thought of any future consequences. (Romans 1:18-21)

 

I Deluded the Truth

Although I did not plan to do so, along the way I know that I deluded the truth to many people around me hearing my words and seeing my actions because I was deluding the truth to myself. The delusion of truth I created around me caused turmoil in my thinking and the longer I let myself think what I was thinking was true even though it wasn’t, it was only true to the point which I could suppress my conscience thought because deep inside I knew that I was living in a self-made delusion yet I just didn’t want to admit to myself that I was; and so to the best of my ability, I did not admit it to myself. (Jeremiah 17:5)

 

I did not admit it to myself because I wanted to continue to believe that what I was doing was okay to do. I kept justifying what I was doing to myself. In all these things that I was doing I kept saying to myself that they were really okay because everyone else was doing it and that with everyone else doing it, it must be okay for me to do it too. My “everyone” included the worldly peers who were doing it, movies and TV showing and doing it and songs telling about it. The temptations were all there for me to choose to do and with many examples to follow, I made my choice and fell to those temptations. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

 

In reality however; I was continually lying to myself to suppress the truth. The more and longer I lied to myself the easier it got for me to lie to not only myself but to others as well. My initial lie to myself grew to include other lies which included me lying to other people verbally and/or in my actions. All along the way I also continued to tell myself and others that I was a Christian.

 

After all I would think to myself; I did grow up in a Christian home and called myself a Christian. Yet really I was not a Christian because I was not following Christ Jesus’ teachings and had not regretted nor had stopped any of my sinful ways. (Romans 1:18-32)

 

Living a Multiple Life of Lies

Dependent upon who it was I was with, I would totally act differently around them. When I was with my party friends, I’d be a partyer. When I was with my parents and certain family members, I’d act more devout. At work I would be somewhere in between. On my own I’d be scheming and trying to keep track of the various stories I’d told the people around me and predominantly selfishly thinking of only myself. It was very difficult at times when I was required to be around more than one group of people at a time because I was always putting on an act and I was never just me because I didn’t feel like anyone would like just me being me. In reality, I didn’t really know who I really was because I had let myself lie to myself so often and for so long. At times I had some feelings of guilt and during these times I’d get a slight awareness of who I should be and how I should act yet I would quickly suppress that notion of who I was because it didn’t fit with what I was telling myself I wanted to do. (Proverbs 12:5)

 

Underage drinking, experimental drug use, totally reckless driving, taking advantage of family and friends, theft, planning a murder (shortly after my father was murdered) and sexual addiction are among the most terrible things I did. All are against God’s will for anyone to do yet I did them without thinking of any consequences for myself or those around me. During this time I easily broke each of the “Ten Commandments” and did not think anything about breaking them either. After all, I said that I was a Christian and at certain times I acted as one. Yet just saying and acting as a Christian isn’t asking forgiveness and truly not planning sinful actions and following Christ Jesus’ teachings is it? (Psalm 7:14)

 

Arguing with God

One night when I was 18 years old after taking more than half a bottle of over the counter sleeping pills, I lay wide awake in bed all night not being able to close my eyes for more than a few seconds at a time. God told me that I was going to be an evangelist spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to thousands of people and point them to the truth of His love for them. I started arguing with God. I told Him that there’s no way that I’m going to do that because if I did that, that I’d be a huge hypocrite. God told me again that I would be and evangelist pointing people to Him and again I told Him that I would not be. (Proverbs 17:19)

 

I knew of and actually ran around with a preacher who was in secrete living the same lies I was and I first hand saw his hypocrisy. We would compete for the same women, drink the same alcohol, and smoke the same pot. There was no way that I wanted to be that much of a hypocrite. I remember asking him about how could he preach in the pulpit and do what he was doing and not feel that it was wrong. He told me that it was easy because he didn’t preach against what he was doing. Yet in reality, he was doing the exact same think I was, not letting God lead his life and going against God’s teachings and living a life of lies. Thus this preacher’s hypocrisy was the same as mine. He was not asking forgiveness and not planning sinful actions and following Christ Jesus’ teachings yet he was supposedly teaching Christ Jesus’ instructions and saying that he was a Christian. (Psalm 59:12)

 

I Chose to Really Accept Christ Jesus

On and on I went living my life for myself and living a life of multiple lifestyles dependent upon where and who it was I was with and lying as needed to everyone about who I was until one day I came to my senses and realized that I had become someone I did not want to be. Not only did I realize that I had become someone I did not want to be, I realized that I had become someone who I did not want to be around. I had realized that I was not able to trust myself and this especially became clear to me when I caught myself planning to take someone’s life in revenge of my father’s murder. (John 14:1)

 

I was in my mid 30s when I admitted the truth to myself and to God that I was a liar. I confessed to God that I should not be acting as I was because I know the truth. I asked God for forgiveness and through the loving gift of His only begotten Son Jesus’ death on a cross and resurrection, God forgives me because I repented of and repent of the sins I commit (Romans 5:8 ). At that time I also started allowing God to lead me in life instead of just doing things on my own although I didn’t fully let God lead me as I didn’t place all of my trust in Him at first. (2 Samuel 22:31)

 

At first, I continued to take sexual advantage of women as before but unlike before when I could lie to myself about it and suppress any guilty feelings I had because my relationship with Christ Jesus would not let me suppress any guilt. In fact, the guilt I felt would increase even more intensely over time and to such an extent that I finally realized that what I was doing was wrong. It was wrong because in my actions were selfish and not healthy for neither me nor the women I was taking advantage of in a number of ways. It wasn’t healthy in that still today I deeply regret that I had not waited until I was married and I’m sure that the women I was with have the same regrets as to being with me and any other man other than their husband. Another way it isn’t healthy to have sexual relations outside of marriage is that of sexually transmitted diseases. The main way it is wrong is that it goes against the teachings of Christ Jesus. (1 John 2:16)

 

Humbling Myself

Very soon after I repented of my sins and accepted Christ Jesus as full payment for my sins, God led me to give apologies to many of those whom I hurt during my deceitful era which I humbled myself and apologized to them. Still to this day God brings to my attention people I need to apologize to by bringing them back into my life and reminding me of how I hurt them. (2 Corinthians 12:21) It’s hard for me to humble myself and apologize to someone I’ve done wrong. Yet God doesn’t bring these people back into my life and wag His finger in my face telling me how wrong I was to do whatever it was I did to them. God brings these people back into my life and reminds me of how I hurt them and He not only gives to me the courage and strength to apologize to them but the right opportunity to apologize to them. (Isaiah 12:2)

 

God has shown to me that I am not any more or less special than anyone else in this world. God loves me just as much as he loves you; no more and no less. From God showing to me His love for me by His changing the destructive life I was living, I learned how to humble myself and to put others ahead of myself. (Proverbs 11:2) As I’ve learned over the years from God how to humble myself, God has over these years gave to me hundreds of blessings including my wonderful wife and opportunities which if I had continued along the way I was prior to my acceptance of Christ Jesus as full payment for my sins would have never come along. (James 4:10)

 

A Positive Change in My Life

Right after I really accepted Christ Jesus as full payment for my sins and made the choice to let Him lead me in life, I started becoming me with everyone instead of putting on an act of whom I thought the people around me wanted me to be with them. God help me realize that no matter what goes on around me and with whomever it is I am with even if I am alone, I need to be consistent with my thoughts and actions and follow His teachings of loving Him and everyone. Loving everyone includes loving those people who cut you off while you are driving and for me those people who murdered my father when I was 28 years old just after Christmas. (Romans 12:19)

 

The more I let myself trust God in my life, the more I realized that the hatred I held against those people who murdered my father wasn’t hurting them, it was hurting me. By my actively thinking negatively about the people who murdered my father, I was giving these negative thoughts an opportunity to control me and thus my actions. By my giving these thoughts of hate a place in my thinking, I was still not fully letting God lead me. (Proverbs 10:12)

 

Yet now after I had really accepted Christ Jesus as my Savior, God would convict me of my thinking negatively about my father’s murderers making me feel guilty for wanting them dead. God would remind me that I am in fact no better than they are because I had planned their murder and would have done it if I had not finally been honest with myself and with God about the life of lies and multiple life that I was living. Each time I thought hate about anyone God would not let me do so without continually reminding me of how wretched I am and of how He loves these people just as much as He loves me. God reminds me that I should rightfully be against and hate what they did but not hate the people who did it. (James 4:7)

 

At that time instead of hating the people who murdered my father, I realized that they were living a life of lies like I had been. I realized too that God loves them just as much as He loves me and that He wants them to come to realize that they are living a life of lies and that God loves them. It was at this point in my life in my late 30s that instead of hating those people who murdered my father, I understood that they were lost as I had been and I forgave them for murdering my father and started to love them and pray for them to accept Christ Jesus as their Savior. (Matthew 6:14-15)

 

I read Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion”

One day not long after “The God Delusion” was published, I was in a book store and was strongly compelled to get it. So I bought it and I started reading it. As I read it, I realized that even though I had not done much study of the Bible, that what Richard Dawkins had written was way off from what the Bible actually had written in it. I also noticed that Richard Dawkins has a habit of stating something as fact when there is no evidence of it at all. As I continued to read “The God Delusion” I couldn’t help but realize that Richard Dawkins was attacking straw men he made up and was stating that this is was God and Christianity was all about. The more I read “The God Delusion” the more I was compelled to do something to correct all of the erroneous teachings about God and Christ Jesus that Richard Dawkins had written. (2 John 1:7; 2 Peter 2:3)

 

It was at this point in my mid-forties that I remembered and realized that what God had told me when I was 18 about me being an evangelist for Him was going to actually happen. God had not told me that sometime in the future I would be an evangelist for Him. God just told me when I was 18 that I would be an evangelist for Him. I knew now as I read “The God Delusion” that just as God had told me when I was 18 that I would not be a hypocrite being an evangelist for God because unlike when God first told me what I would be doing for Him, I now let Him lead me in life and I fully trust Him. (James 3:1)

 

So in 2008 at the age of 46 I started a web site, blog (http://FindingTruthToday.org) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/GospelToday) and in December 2010 a YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/FindingTruthToday) to evangelize God’s message of love and to point people to Him just as God had told me when I was 18 that I would do.

 

My evangelism of the Gospel of Christ Jesus thus started because of Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion” and reading “The God Delusion” also was when I started studying the Bible and evidence supporting it. The more I read the Bible and study it and learn more about it and am asked to answer questions about it, the more the Bible stands as solid evidence that it came from God to us so that we can learn of His great love for us. (Romans 5:8)

 

Why Do I Believe?

trajaen534, I believe God loves me because of the positive change He made in my life. I know from the universe and life that God exists and through the personal relationship I have with Him. I believe that God loves me because of the positive change God made in my life through my personal relationship with Christ Jesus which demonstrates to me that God cares about us so much that He only wants the best for us and He tells us in the Bible how to do this (Titus 2:5-15; ).

 

From the way God positively changed my life, I trust that God will fulfill the promise He made that His only begotten Son, Christ Jesus, through His living a sinless life as a fully human man and with His suffering on a cross and His bodily dying for my and your sins Christ Jesus fully paid the debt of death we (you and I) owe and through His physical resurrection from death, He created for you and me a means by which if we choose to believe in Him, opens up the narrow path’s gate for us to be in Heaven with God (1 Corinthians 15:4-14).

Christopher Hitchens Legacy to Humanity

Christopher Hitchens legacy to humanity falls short of what it could have been.

A statement released by Vanity Fair late the night Christopher Hitchens died stated:

"There will never be another like Christopher. A man of ferocious intellect, who was as vibrant on the page as he was at the bar," Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter said in the statement. "Those who read him felt they knew him, and those who knew him were profoundly fortunate souls."

I agree that there will never be another person like Christopher Hitchens and there was never anyone like him before. God creates each of us uniquely and to each of us gives some exceptional ability which not many of us actually aspire to achieve to the level that Christopher Hitchens did during his lifetime of 62 years.

Christopher Hitchens’ legacy to Humanity is in my eyes two fold. Overall, Christopher Hitchens could have been so much greater than he was. Christopher Hitchens had a chance to positively change the world yet instead his legacy promotes and inspires an immense hatred against people who have placed their faith in God’s promises and follow Christ Jesus.

Firstly his greatest success: Hitchens correctly went after and exposed perverted religious zealots who aspire to power and wealth and bring corruption into the world stating that God is giving them authority to do so. With his God given wit, Hitchens attacked them using his God given verbal and writing skills.

In Hitchens’ rightly attacking religion, he was following what God teaches us in the Bible as religion separates people from God. “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27 NIV

Secondly his greatest failure: Although Hitchens knew who God is, he also attacked God during his fight against religious zealots. With his inclusion of God during his attacks, Hitchens even though knowing who God is, is today giving many atheists an enhanced inspiration to spew messages of vile hatred towards God and Christians.

To his credit: Christopher Hitchens during his lifetime clearly defined to everyone who God is and what a true Christian is yet many atheists choose to overlook and not care to know what Hitchens said and wrote about God.

To his discredit: Instead of pointing people to Whom God actually is and clearly dividing a rightful line between religion and God, Hitchens chose to muddle religion with God just as those religious zealots Hitchens so rightly went after and exposed.

Christopher Hitchens knew who God is: Upon more than one occasion Hitchens made it clear that he knew what true Christianity is. In his article NewYorkTimes.com; “In the Name of the Father, the Sons . . .”(1) Hitchens clearly shows his knowledge and understanding of and articulates to those who read it in context, who Christ Jesus is:

‘Belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth and belief in the virtue of his teachings are not at all the same thing. Writing to John Adams in 1813, having taken his razor blade to the books of the New Testament and removed all "the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests," Thomas Jefferson said the 46-page residue contained "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." Ernest Renan, in his path breaking "Life of Jesus" in 1863, also repudiated the idea that Jesus was the son of God while affirming the beauty of his teachings. In rather striking contrast, C. S. Lewis maintained in his classic statement "Mere Christianity":

"That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse."

As an admirer of Jefferson and Renan and a strong nonadmirer of Lewis, I am bound to say that Lewis is more honest here. Absent a direct line to the Almighty and a conviction that the last days are upon us, how is it "moral" to teach people to abandon their families, give up on thrift and husbandry and take to the stony roads? How is it moral to claim a monopoly on access to heaven, or to threaten waverers with everlasting fire, let alone to condemn fig trees and persuade devils to infest the bodies of pigs? Such a person if not divine would be a sorcerer and a ­fanatic.’

In Hitchens’ review of a book by fellow atheist Philip Pullman who is writing about Jesus, Hitchens makes an incredibly important point. If we take Jesus seriously, then we have to take seriously what he said about himself. You cannot separate the ‘words’ of Jesus from the ‘identity’ of Jesus.

C. S. Lewis says Jesus is the Son of God or a madman or something worse. Hitchens agrees. Lewis says he's the Son of God whereas Hitchens stated Jesus might have been a sorcerer or a fanatic.

This brings us back to the famous "trilemma."

Is Jesus Lord?

Is Jesus a liar?

Is Jesus a lunatic?

Hitchens is absolutely right to insist that the so-called "moral teachings" of Christ make no sense unless he is indeed the Son of God, a conclusion Hitchens utterly rejects at the time of his writing the review. Christians would say that Hitchens is right on the first point but wrong in his conclusion. But at least he frames the issue correctly.(2)

Christopher Hitchens knew what true Christianity is and how to be saved From eternal death: During a “Portland Monthly Magazine” interview when asked about what is a true Christian Hitchens stated:

“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.”(3)

Christopher Hitchens’ overall legacy to humanity deeply saddens me: Hitchens knowing clearly who God is muddled his rightful hatred of religion and religious zealots with an irate hatred of God. Today this clearly is wrathfully fueling immense hatred and vile comments in so many atheists against people who worship Christ Jesus and desire that Hitchens prior to his death repented of his sins. It also saddens me that to my limited knowledge Christopher Hitchens continued to reject his Creator’s gift of salvation, our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.

There is hope “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” Romans 10:13 KJV: With Christopher Hitchens knowing who God actually is and what a true Christian is, it brings to me hope that Hitchens just prior to his final moments of life on this earth be it expressed out loud or not, could have accepted Christ Jesus as his Christ and Messiah.

Yet you and I will not know until our deaths will we. Neither you nor me have died so you and me don’t know Christopher Hitchens’ final choice on accepting Christ Jesus or not. My desire is that Christopher Hitchens prior to his death did accept Christ Jesus as his savior.

One thing however I do know is that at this time either if he chose to accept Christ Jesus as his savior or not is that Christopher Hitchens’ desire now more than ever is that he wants you to accept Christ Jesus as your savior.

References

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/books/review/Hitchens-t.html?nl=books&emc=booksupdateema3

2) http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147496549

3) Quote from Christopher Hitchens from “Portland Monthly Magazine” http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hitchens

Christopher Hitchens Knew what a True Christian Is

My deepest condolences to the Hitchens family at their time of loss of husband, father, brother, friend; Christopher Hitchens died on December 15th, 2011 from complications brought on by cancer. Though the melancholy as time goes by lessens it never fully dissipates. Our hope then must be beyond our meager means. We need to look to God for it is through His mercy and love we get peace. Knowing that through Christ Jesus, God gave to us His love.

It deeply saddens me that to my limited knowledge Christopher Hitchens continued to reject his Creator’s gift of salvation, our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus. Christopher Hitchens knew how to be saved from eternal death as during an interview when asked about what is a true Christian he stated:

“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.”

Quote from Christopher Hitchens from “Portland Monthly Magazine”
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hitchens

With Christopher Hitchens knowing what a true Christian is, it brings to me hope that Hitchens just prior to his final moments of life on this earth be it expressed out loud or not, could have accepted Christ Jesus as his Christ and Messiah. My desire is that Christopher Hitchens prior to his death did accept Christ Jesus as his savior.

I will not know Christopher Hitchens’ choice until my time on this earth ends. One thing however I do know is that at this time Christopher Hitchens either if he chose to accept Christ Jesus as his savior or not now more than ever wants you to accept Christ Jesus as your savior.

Why Would Anyone Think Noah's Flood is True?

 

Morals - Absolute or Not?

@GRIMACHU from Twitter says that morals are subjective (not absolute) and that we live within secular morality. Going on to say that the Bible has contractions in Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:18-19 which undermines 'absolute morality' said to be within the Bible thus it retains the entire, vicious Old Testament laws as being binding today.

 I have to admit that many people in today’s secular society state that society follows secular objective (not absolute) morality meaning that it is based upon opinions of individuals and of a ruling society, morals seem to shift from position to position dependent upon varying circumstances. To these people saying that, I say that they have not sat down and actually thought about what subjective morality really is.

Morals; Absolutely

Objective (not absolute) secular morality is not the case if one were to absolutely look at the morality that is within each of our God given nature. If we look at the morality within each of our nature, we each absolutely know instinctively right from wrong and good from evil although be it that we do not always choose to adhere to what we know to be right and good. We know instinctively right from wrong and good from evil because we ourselves each do not want to be raped, murdered, lied to, cheated on (adultery), or wronged in any way. None of us need to be told by a community standard that we don’t want to be raped, murdered, lied to, cheated on (adultery), or wronged in any way because we absolutely know beyond doubt we do not want these things to happen to us. From our each knowing instinctively that we do not want these things to happen to us, we therefore absolutely know that these things are wrong and evil to do to others thus within each of us we have and know absolute moral standards which we each should follow.

Morals; Subjectively

@GRIMACHU tweeted; “You can't really create an absolute [morality] though, conditions are too changeable. Any moral system is subjective. The best we could hope for is objectivity in human context.” This is absolute hogwash because as we each know instinctively right from wrong and good from evil because we ourselves each do not want to be raped, murdered, lied to, cheated on (adultery), or wronged in any way therefore we know within us an absolute moral standard which we should follow.

If @GRIMACHU was right in that every moral system is subjective and that we cannot have absolute moral standards because conditions are too changeable, then at any time subjective morals of a society could not only consider rape, murder, adultery, larceny, infanticide, etc. as morally okay but could actually put them into action as moral standards of law. Here are examples of subjective morals that were actually put into action: Remember Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and others like them who starved and eradicated certain people groups, took their belongings and called it good for society. Many people in their society went along with it as though what was going on was a moral thing to do because their leader said it was okay and commanded it even though those people groups who were being starved and eradicated had done nothing deserving to be starved and eradicated.

Now think about if Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc., had not been stopped and could not be stopped and had continued to starve and eradicate certain people groups and taking their things. Would Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. being in control of society, making moral laws saying that it was good to starve and eliminate certain people groups and take their belongings, really make it moral? Of course not because absolutely we know morally that it is morally wrong to starve and eliminate people groups and take anyone’s belongings because we each do not want our people groups to be starved and eliminated and our things taken.

If morals were subjective then there was nothing wrong or evil with what Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and others like them did (or do) because it was done by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler objectively in human context to those who were not being eliminated as helpful to their society. Yet we (you and me) know absolutely beyond doubt that what they did was wrong and evil because morals are not subjective to human context, clear-cut absolute morals are unquestionably known to us because instinctively we know right from wrong and good from evil because we ourselves each do not want to be raped, murdered, lied to, cheated on (adultery), or wronged in any way.

Morals; In the Bible

GRIMACHU tweeted that, “We're the ones who decide, the only common standard is community standard.” As we’ve learned, if the only common standard is a community standard moral, then we’d be open to having rape, murder, adultery, lying, larceny, etc., as acceptable morals because some people who gain control of  communities and countries, Mao, Stalin, Hitler for example, impose their subjective morals to which we know are not real morals because morals are not subjective, morals are absolutely known to us because instinctively we know right from wrong and good from evil because we ourselves each do not want to be raped, murdered, lied to, cheated on (adultery), wronged in any way, etc.

I’ve had many atheists make statements to me such as, “You have to have God tell you to not rape and murder so that you don’t rape and murder.” Yes, God put knowledge of absolute moral standards into each of us so that we instinctively know right from wrong and good from evil by our not wanting to be raped, murdered, lied to, cheated on (adultery), wronged in any way, etc. God also gave to us the Ten Commandments which He originally wrote in stone.

Laws In the Bible’s Old Testament

@GRIMACHU tweeted that the Bible has contraction which undermines 'absolute morality' said to be taught within Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:18-19 that is said to back up and retain the entire, vicious Old Testament laws as being morally binding today. Let’s look over what is in the Old Testament and who it was written for and then go into the New Testament and see what is in it and to whom it was written.

In the book of Exodus 19:1—40:38, God is giving the law to the Israelites, including tabernacle instructions and construction details, and what happens when the law is broken. God’s law system is described in three parts within the book of Exodus. The first part, the Ten Commandments contain the absolutes of spiritual and moral life. The second part was the civil law which gave the Israelites rules to manage their lives. Thirdly, the ceremonial law described patterns for Israelites to build a tabernacle and regular worship. God revealed His law to the Israelites so that they could learn more about what God is like and how He expected them to live as His people.

The book of Leviticus defines instructions for the priests and Levites outlining their duties in worshiping a holy God and a guidebook of holy living for the Hebrews. Leviticus 1:1—17:16 are instructions for the offerings, instructions for priests, instructions for the people, and instructions for the altar which all are for worshiping a holy God. Leviticus 18:1—27:34 define living a holy life and has standards for the people, rules for priests, descriptions of seasons and festivals and receiving God’s blessing. In Leviticus, God gave clear standards to the Israelites for how to live a holy life, separate and distinct from pagan nations around them.

The book of Deuteronomy was written to the new Israel generation about to enter into the Promised Land for daily living guidelines and civil laws. In Deuteronomy, God reviewed His laws for the people and the legal contract between God and His people had to be renewed by the new generation of Israelites about to enter the Promised Land. Deuteronomy 4:44—28:68 go over again the Ten Commandments and is God reminding His people that in order to ratify His agreement, they must choose the path of obedience and follow the daily living guidelines given to them.

Laws given during those Old Testament times are as laws given today which means, there are consequences to choice we make or do not make but should have made. It is vital for you and me to actually think before we act today so to not break the law and back then, it was no different. In fact, if the people who were given the Ten Commandments could have actually kept the Ten Commandments, there would have been no reason for any further rules and laws. It’s the same with us today. If each one of us could actually not break the Ten Commandments, there would not be any need for new laws. But the people back then make poor choices just as you and I today make poor choices and as such, we have more and more complex laws.

(Read this article to learn more about some of the most graphic Old Testament laws: http://findingtruthtoday.typepad.com/finding-truth-today/2010/12/barbarous-rules-from-a-loving-god.html)

Laws In the Bible’s New Testament

As a follower of Christ Jesus, both the Old Testament and the New Testament make up the Holy Bible. The Old Testament isn’t called “The Old Testament” by Jewish people yet it is the same writings in both only a slight different order of books. Jewish people do not consider the New Testament as holy scripture. Only people who follow Christ Jesus consider the New Testament as holy and as the Word of God. The reason for this is that Jewish people do not accept Christ Jesus as the Messiah. Many Jewish people are still waiting on the Messiah to arrive however, people who used to be Jewish at the time Christ Jesus was walking in human flesh, saw the miracles Jesus performed and saw Him die, and then saw Him after He rose from death which fulfilled the Jewish holy scriptures (today’s Old Testament) prophecies about the Messiah. These previously Jewish people wrote the scriptures which became the New Testament.

People who actually follow Christ Jesus are true Christians (Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16) and take the whole bible, Old Testament and New Testament as God’s word and as absolute truth and read it all in context.

Christ Jesus as stated in Matthew 5:17-20, said the following concerning the Law and Prophets;

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus then goes on and gives a list of the commandments He is discussing:

Murder – Matthew 5:25,26 -- Luke 12:58,59

Adultery – Matthew 5:27-30

Divorce – Matthew 5:31-32 – Luke 16:16-18

Keeping One’s Word – Matthew 5:33-37

Turning the other Cheek – Matthew 5:38-42

Love your Enemies – Matthew 5:43-48

Giving to the Needy – Matthew 6:1-4

Prayer – Matthew 6:9-13pp -- Luke 11:2-4

So if Jesus didn’t come to abolish the law, doesn’t that mean that all of the Old Testament laws still apply to us today? Those who do not read the Bible in context say, “Yes, it does mean that the Old Testament laws apply to those who say that the Bible is God’s never changing word and those who say it doesn’t are ‘cherry picking’ what they want the Bible to say because they don’t want to abide by those laws.” Reading the Bible in context however, we learn that there were three categories of law given to the Israelites by God; ceremonial law, civil law, moral law.

The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel worshiping God as described in Leviticus which points forward to the Messiah to come - Christ Jesus. These laws became nullified and no longer necessary after Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection. While we are now not bound to ceremonial laws, the principles behind each of them (to worship and love a holy God) still apply. The Pharisees often accused Jesus as not following and breaking ceremonial laws.

The civil law like Deuteronomy 24:10 for example, applied to daily living in Israel. Today’s society and culture is very radically different than back then and trying to follow civil guidelines of that era today, couldn’t specifically be something we could always do. Jesus actually demonstrated the principles of the civil law.

Moral law (The Ten Commandments in Exodus) is a direct command of God which requires strict obedience; i.e., Exodus 20:13. Moral law reveals the nature and will of God for us to follow and does still apply to us today. Jesus completely obeyed the moral law and teaches them to us in Matthew chapters 5 through 7.

Absolute Morals

Clearly @GRIMACHU has not read the Bible in context or is only taking someone’s word for contradictions being in it because as we see, there are none with regard to absolute morals we should follow; those taught to us by Jesus in the New Testament. The absolute moral standards given to us in the Bible cover each of the

The Gospel (Good News)

With ceremonial law not applicable due to Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection, civil law being given specifically for the Israelites to follow, it leaves only moral law which we all should follow. This is good news that we don’t have to follow the ceremonial and civil law of that time. However, the Ten Commandments are something that no one can fully follow because you and I are not perfect. Being imperfect, we cannot at each moment of the day for every day of our life totally follow each and every moral law given to us by Jesus.

Because you and I are not perfect and thus cannot completely obey the Ten Commandments, Jesus came and fulfilled them in full for us (Matthew 5:17-20). This is the Gospel of Christ Jesus, that He came and perfectly followed the Law for you and me. You see, God knew you and I couldn’t follow the Ten Commandments so He sent His only begotten Son, Jesus, to do it for us (John 3:16-21). We each only have to accept that Christ Jesus did this for us and admit that we cannot do this on our own.

Your Choice

It is your choice to make to read the Bible in context. It is your choice to make if you want to know truth. It is your choice to make if you want to not just take my word for truth and do your own seeking for truth. I suggest that you not take my word for anything that I’ve said. It is your life, why should you believe me? I don’t know everything.

References

“Life Application Study Bible” New International Version (NIV), Zondervan

Bible Study Tools:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/5.html

http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6.html

http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html

http://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/12.html

http://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/16.html

From where do Morals come? http://findingtruthtoday.typepad.com/finding-truth-today/2011/01/from-where-do-morals-come.html

Yes I am a Liar

What is a liar? From dictionary.com: a liar is a person who tells lies. Lies are a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood - something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture - an inaccurate or false statement - the charge or accusation of lying. Lying is the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness.

Over the years I’ve been accused of being a liar by hundreds of atheists. Up to this point, I’ve just ignored their accusations. Today however, I will admit that yes, I am a liar.

 In fact everyone including you is a liar to some extent. Some people lie more lies and larger lies than others and many people lie about different things but the truth is, everyone is a liar.

 Be honest with yourself and with others and above all be honest with God. You know you have lied. You know you lie. You know when you tell a lie. You know what you lie about. You know why you lie when you lie. You even know that it is wrong to tell the lie as you are telling the lie.

Just because everyone (including you and me) lies, does not make lying a good thing to do, the right thing to do or an okay thing to do. All lies, even the so called “white” lie are wrong for us to do  because even a so called “white” lie is in reality, a lie.

Many people do not want to admit that they are a liar. They lie to themselves and deny that they are a liar. They make up excuses to cover up their lies so to feel better about themselves. In their lying to themselves they train themselves to better ignore their lies and how to make up excuses for their lies. Their ignoring and making excuses for their lies helps them to tell more lies easier. Do you ignore yourself when you tell a lie? Do you lie to yourself? Do you make up excuses for the lies you have told and are telling? Do you deny that you lie or have ever lied?

You know you don’t want anyone including your family and friends to lie to you. You know how it feels to be lied to by someone. So why do you continue to lie?

“Loyalty is desirable in a person, and it is better to be poor than a liar.” Proverbs 19:22 - GOD'S WORD Translation (GW)

I used to lie a lot about a lot of things and to everyone and to myself. I didn’t let my lying bother me much because I made excuses for my lying. You can read about some of it here: http://findingtruthtoday.typepad.com/finding-truth-today/2009/08/a-testimonial-of-a-sinner.html

God says that lying is a sin and that everyone has committed sin. Sin is  knowingly doing something we know we should not do i.e., lying and knowingly not doing we what we know we should do i.e., tell the truth.

“Everyone has sinned. No one measures up to God's glory.” Romans 3:23 - New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

God informs us that; “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” Exodus 20:16 - King James Version (KJV)

God affirms that; "You (and me) must not tell lies. …” Exodus 23:1 - New Century Version (NCV)

God warns us that; “A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape.” Proverbs 19:5 - English Standard Version (ESV)

“When people sin, they earn what sin pays -- death. But God gives us a free gift -- life forever in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23 - New Century Version (NCV)

“Everyone must die once, and after that be judged by God.” Hebrews 9:27 - Good News Translation (GNT)

“And I tell you that on the Judgment Day people (including me) will be responsible for every careless thing they have said.” Matthew 12:36 - New Century Version (NCV)

“If we (you and me) say we have not sinned, we make God a liar, and we do not accept God's teaching.” 1 John 1:10 – New Century Version (NCV)

I am a human being and like you I am not perfect. At times I do lie but nothing like I did prior to my repenting of my sins and accepting God’s free gift; Christ Jesus as my savior and Lord. The lies I tell now albeit the “white” lie kind are few and infrequent yet tear me up inside more so than any of the huge lies I told and lived out before I allowed God to work in me to change my evil ways. True, I am not perfect yet I continue to tell fewer and fewer lies. I will however never be perfect and cannot ever be perfect on my own.

Everything in my possession including each heart beat and breath I take comes from God and nothing in my possession can I take with me when I die. If it was not for Christ Jesus taking my sins upon Himself, I would have no means to pay the debt of death I owe God for the sins I have committed against Him.

“For God had such love for the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life. God did not send his Son into the world to be judge of the world; he sent him so that the world might have salvation through him.” John 3:16-17 - Bible in Basic English (BBE)

“Anyone who believes in the Son of God has the truth that God told us. Anyone who does not believe makes God a liar, because that person does not believe what God told us about his Son.” 1 John 5:10 – New Century Version (NCV)

“Who is the liar? It is the person who does not accept Jesus as the Christ. This is the enemy of Christ: the person who does not accept the Father and his Son.” 1 John 2:22 – New Century Version (NCV)

It is a lie to think that atheism offers anything good and that any value can come from atheism. Truth is Atheism offers only eternal death. Christ Jesus offers eternal life.

It is your choice during your time here on this earth to choose either death or life. I suggest that you choose wisely; accept God’s free gift of Christ Jesus by placing your trust in Him and turn away from sinning.

In this article and video; “God knows I am not lying. He is the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and He is to be praised forever.” 2 Corinthians 11:31 - New Century Version (NCV)

 

My Prayer for Christopher Hitchens

A Little Background On Christopher Hitchens

In April 2011, Christopher Hitchens was forced to cancel a scheduled appearance at the American Atheist Convention. He instead sent a letter that stated, "Nothing would have kept me from joining you except the loss of my voice (at least my speaking voice) which in turn is due to a long argument I am currently having with the specter of death." He closed the letter with "And don't keep the faith." In the letter Christopher Hitchens also dismissed the notion of a possible deathbed conversion, in which he claimed that "redemption and supernatural deliverance appears even more hollow and artificial to me than it did before." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Cancer_treatment

“...About a year ago, I was informed by a doctor that I might have as little as another year to live. In consequence, some of these articles were written with the full consciousness that they might be my very last,” Hitchens wrote in his introduction to his new book; “Arguably: Essays by Christopher Hitchens.”

Christopher Hitchens’ Thoughts on Prayer for Him

According to an Associated Press report, Christopher Hitchens feels that those praying for him can be broken down into three groups: "those who seem genuinely glad he's suffering and dying from cancer; those who want him to become a believer in their religious faith; and those who are asking God to heal him." And for his part, he said that he will not be participating in any prayer because he does not feel that prayer, or "incantations" as he puts it, will help him with this. He has elected to put his "faith" in medicine.

A Fourth Group Christopher Hitchens Left Out

Christopher Hitchens did not include the fourth group praying for him of which I belong. This fourth group is praying for Christopher Hitchens is praying for God’s will to be done; For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16). This fourth group sincerely wants Christopher Hitchens to stay away from religion, for him to not wait until he is on his death bed for him do what he knows is the right thing to do.

Christopher Hitchens Knows the Right Thing to Do

Christopher Hitchens during an interview when asked about what is a true Christian stated: “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.” Quote from Christopher Hitchens from “Portland Monthly Magazine” http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hitchens

Why should Christopher Hitchens do the Right Thing

New Testament book of James Chapter 4 - New Century Version (NCV)

Do you know where your fights and arguments come from? They come from the selfish desires that war within you.

You want things, but you do not have them. So you are ready to kill and are jealous of other people, but you still cannot get what you want. So you argue and fight.

You do not get what you want, because you do not ask God. Or when you ask, you do not receive because the reason you ask is wrong.

You want things so you can use them for your own pleasures. So, you are not loyal to God!

You should know that loving the world is the same as hating God. Anyone who wants to be a friend of the world becomes God's enemy.

Do you think the Scripture means nothing that says, "The Spirit that God made to live in us wants us for himself alone?"

But God gives us even more grace, as the Scripture says, "God is against the proud, but he gives grace to the humble."

So give yourselves completely to God. Stand against the devil, and the devil will run from you.

Come near to God, and God will come near to you.

You sinners, clean sin out of your lives.

You who are trying to follow God and the world at the same time, make your thinking pure.

Be sad, cry, and weep! Change your laughter into crying and your joy into sadness.

Don't be too proud in the Lord's presence, and he will make you great.

Brothers and sisters, do not tell evil lies about each other. If you speak against your fellow believers or judge them, you are judging and speaking against the law they follow. And when you are judging the law, you are no longer a follower of the law. You have become a judge.

God is the only Lawmaker and Judge. He is the only One who can save and destroy. So it is not right for you to judge your neighbor.

Some of you say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to some city. We will stay there a year, do business, and make money."

But you do not know what will happen tomorrow! Your life is like a mist. You can see it for a short time, but then it goes away.

So you should say, "If the Lord wants, we will live and do this or that."

But now you are proud and you brag. All of this bragging is wrong.

Anyone who knows the right thing to do, but does not do it, is sinning.

New Testament Book of Romans chapter 6 verse 23 - King James Version (KJV)

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

My Prayer for Christopher Hitchens

Mr. Hitchens, I know you know the right thing to do as you’ve stated it clearly and concisely. My prayer is for you to actually do the right thing. In Christ Jesus’ name I pray. Amen.

Why do atheists like Penn Jillett, use God's name as profanity?

I’ve been watching Penn & Teller (Penn Jillette and Raymond Teller) do their blend of illusion and comedy from when they were first on Saturday Night Live, through their TV specials, guest appearances, and most lately their “Fool Us” and “Tell a Lie” shows. I have not had the privilege of watching them in person, although that would be very cool even though both are atheists.

Over the years, I’ve noticed that on and off stage (via YouTube video clips) that Penn Jillett uses God’s name as profanity in an assortment of ways. Penn’s blasphemy is a show of disrespect, a desecration and debasement of and is an offensive attack on God (The Father, Only Begotten Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit) which is sinful, violating the first, second, and directly violating the third commandment given in, ‘The Ten Commandments’ - Exodus 20:7 "Never use the name of the LORD your God carelessly. The LORD will make sure that anyone who carelessly uses his name will be punished.” GOD'S WORD Translation (GW)

Why do atheists like Penn Jillette who openly says and teaches his daughter that “God does not exist” use God's name as profanity instead of using false gods names like, Allah, Buddha, Ra, Zeus, Aphrodite, Apollo, etc. as profanity? Penn Jillette and other atheists do it because of the power using God’s name as profanity brings to them as they know God is real unlike, Allah, Buddha, Ra, Zeus, Aphrodite, Apollo, etc. who are not real.

Their openly demeaning God with such blasphemous behaviors is serving them in three ways; it helps them continue to deny God, it helps them cope with their denial of God, and it gives them power when defying God and using God’s name as profanity. It helps them to continue to deny God because each time they use God’s name as profanity they say to themselves; “See, God really doesn’t exist as He didn’t drop me dead for using His name that way.” It helps them cope with their denial of God by their looking back at their habitual use over time of the most mighty name ever as a curse word without any consequences giving them comfort with themselves in their denial of God.

Atheists like Penn Jillette don’t use the names of Allah, Buddha, Ra, Zeus, Aphrodite, Apollo, etc. because there is no power in using the names of these false gods. Atheists like Penn Jillette enjoy the power using God’s name as profanity brings to them. The ACLU (and atheists) claim that God’s name is divisive, offensive and controversial. Thus when atheists like Penn Jillette who use God’s name as profanity, knowingly are calling upon that divisive, offensive and controversial nature of God’s name to bring more emphasis and power into their statements so to bring to themselves more power via their profane use of God’s name.

Think about these questions:

1. Is it rational that a person who claims God doesn’t exist (like atheist Penn Jillett does) to continually use God’s name in their vocabulary in any way at all in public or private settings?
2. Is it rational that people who hold God’s name as Holy and deserving of respect are being forced to stop using God’s name in public because it is said by the ACLU (and atheists) that God’s name is divisive, offensive and controversial?
3. Is it rational that atheists like Penn Jillette who publicly says God doesn’t exist, to publicly use God’s name as profanity?
4. Why is God’s name divisive, offensive and controversial and the names of Allah, Buddha, Ra, Zeus, Aphrodite, Apollo, etc. are not?

The atheists’ use of God’s name as profanity confirms that they know God exists and that they are merely choosing to deny God. If the atheist actually believed that God did not exist, the atheist would not use God’s name as profanity just as they don’t use the names of Allah, Buddha, Ra, Zeus, Aphrodite, Apollo, etc. as profanity.

“A wise (or as some people may say a ‘bright’) person is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is careless and overconfident.” Proverbs 14:16 GOD'S WORD Translation (GW)

“Do not be stubborn as in the past when you turned against God...” Hebrews 3:8 New Century Version (NCV)

“God keeps renewing the promise and setting the date as today, … Today, please listen, don't turn a deaf ear…” Hebrews 4:7 The Message (MSG)

“Instead, in order that none of you be deceived by sin and become stubborn, you must help one another every day, as long as the word "Today" in the scripture applies to us.” Hebrews 3:13 Good News Translation (GNT)

“Yet, Pharaoh continued to be stubborn and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, as the LORD had predicted.” Exodus 7:13 GOD'S WORD Translation (GW)

"You can be sure that on the Judgment Day you and I will have to give account of every useless word you and I have ever spoken.”  Matthew 12:36 Good News Translation (GNT)

"Every sin or blasphemy can be forgiven -- except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which can never be forgiven.” Matthew 12:31 New Living Translation (NLT)

Please do not be as Pharaoh who continued to be stubborn and who continued to harden his heart as the time will come when God will  add to your hardened heart. If you continue to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, meaning that you flat out reject and never will choose to accept God’s grace, mercy and love for you, you will never be forgiven because you have chosen to not be forgiven. Exodus 10:1; Romans 1:18-32

You are reading and/or listening to this right now which means that at today, your heart isn’t beyond your softening it to truth.

Our knowingly doing what we know is wrong and our knowingly not doing what we know is right is called sin. Everyone (including me) sins. In fact, I have myself used God’s name as profanity. As with all choices we make, each have a consequence and our choice to sin has a consequence. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23 English Standard Version (ESV)

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son (Christ Jesus), that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged ; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." John 3:16-21 New American Standard (NAS)

“He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But he who walks wisely will be delivered.” Proverbs 28:26 New American Standard (NAS)

“You don't even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? It is a mist that appears for a little while. Then it disappears.” James 4:14 New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

“Today I put before you a blessing and a curse: The blessing if you give ear to the orders of the Lord your God, which I give you this day: And the curse if you do not give ear to the orders of the Lord your God, but let yourselves be turned from the way which I have put before you this day,…” Deuteronomy 11:26-28 Bible in Basic English (BBE)

“The path of life for a wise person leads upward in order to turn him away from hell below.” Proverbs 15:24 GOD'S WORD Translation “GW”

Make your choice today wisely as there may not be a tomorrow.

 

Life or Death - It's Your Choice

This is just another example of atheists using their meme of blind faith: Many atheists say; "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

How can any intelligent person actually enjoy his or her life when the probability of God as the Bible describes exists even in the slightest percentage? Rational and intelligent people actually seek to discover the truth instead of betting their life on a statement of mere chance.

Your choice is to choose life or to choose death. Atheism offers certain death. Christ Jesus offers eternal life.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16 NAS

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” John 6:47 NAS

I suggest you choose wisely.

 

Darwinian Evolution from Leading Darwinists

Here is the truth about Darwinian Evolution (Darwinism) directly from Leading Darwinists themselves. Let’s review the truth about Darwinism that Leading Darwinists proclaim about Darwinian Evolution and draw some deductions from what we learn so that we can come to an informed conclusion about Darwinism.

Truth about Darwinism from Leading Darwinists

Franklin Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State University stated; “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205)

Paul Davies a British-born, internationally acclaimed physicist, writer and broadcaster, who holds the position of Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University, Sydney admitted; “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” (Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003.)

Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet.” (Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004)

Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” (Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138.)

Richard Dawkins a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” (Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986)

Richard Dawkins also said, “[Darwinian] Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.” (pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html>, 3 December, 2004)

Harvard paleontologist (and Darwinian evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. (Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977)

Gould also wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.” (Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993)

Dr. Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” (As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005)

NAS(USA) member Dr. Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.” (Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005)

Because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ....” (Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976)

Dr. Philip Skell also wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….” (Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn't further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html)

Michael Ruse, Darwinian evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” (Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000)

Deductions Drawn from Leading Darwinists about Darwinian Evolution

With no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, having only a variety of wishful speculations, nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell thus we don’t really know how life originated on this planet per Darwinism. Not knowing how life originated on this planet per Darwinism, we also with Darwinism must constantly keep in mind that what we see was not designed, but rather evolved and always remember that biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. One must remember too that although Darwinian Evolution hasn’t been observed while it’s happening, it encounters an extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record and the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem. (Note that all claimed “transitional forms” are speculations based upon Darwinian Evolution being true thus are circular reasoning.)

The contributions of Darwinian Evolution over the last 100 years has been that almost all of biology has proceeded independent of Darwinian Evolution, except Darwinian Evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken Darwinian Evolution into account at all because when an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Because Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research program, it is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers, etc.

Conclusions about Darwinian Evolution from Leading Darwinists about Darwinian Evolution

As Michael Ruse, Darwinian evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “[Darwinian] Evolution is a religion. This was true of [Darwinian] evolution in the beginning, and it is true of [Darwinian] evolution still today.”

How is it that people who believe Darwinian Evolution as factual actually believe it is fact? Richard Dawkins wrote, “The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”

It takes the meme for blind faith to believe Darwinian Evolution is fact.

Conclusion

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. Psalms 14:1

I have complete confidence in the gospel; it is God's power to save all who believe, first the Jews and also the Gentiles. For the gospel reveals how God puts people right with himself: it is through faith from beginning to end. As the scripture says, "The person who is put right with God through faith shall live." God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known. God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain. Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power [physics, mathematics, logic, etc.] and his divine nature [love, morals, etc], have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made [universe, earth, life, etc.].

So those people [atheists] have no excuse at all! They know God, but they do not give him the honor that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense [i.e., the universe created itself from nothing, life created itself from slime and Darwinian evolved into mankind], and their empty minds are filled with darkness [i.e., suicide is okay, abortion is okay, etc.].

They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshiping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortals or birds or animals or reptiles. And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire [deceitfulness, slander, insulting, disrespect, hate, lust, pornography, drunkenness, etc.], and they do shameful things with each other [adultery, fortification, homosexual activities, bestiality, etc.]. They exchange the truth about God for a lie [i.e., Darwinism, Multi-universe, string]; they [atheists] worship and serve what God has created instead of the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever! Amen.

Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing [AIDS, STDs, etc.].

Because those people refuse to keep in mind the true knowledge about God, He has given them over to corrupted minds, so that they do the things that they should not do. They are filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil, greed, and vice; they are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deceit, and malice. They gossip and speak evil of one another [and of those who love God]; they are hateful to God, insolent, proud, and boastful; they think of more ways to do evil; they disobey their parents; they have no conscience; they do not keep their promises, and they show no kindness or pity for others. They know that God's law says that people who live in this way deserve death. Yet, not only do they continue to do these very things, but they even approve of others who do them. Romans 1:16-32 (Good News Translation)

It’s Your Choice

You can choose to continue being a fool and ignore God as you’ve been doing or you can turn to Him right now and honestly apologize to God for the wrongs you have done, turning away from continuing to do them and accept Christ Jesus as full payment for the debt you owe to God for the wrongs you have done. It is simply your choice to make. I suggest that you make a wise choice today right now. “Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” James 4:14

Nothing forms Nothing

Let’s look at two quotes from Richard Dawkins and examine them for their factual content and for their coherent merit.

First quote: “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.”

First off, Richard Dawkins implies that it is a “fact” that “live evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing” which broken down shows that Richard Dawkins says everything around us, universe, earth, you, and me, etc. came “out of literally nothing.”

Have you ever seen anything create itself from nothing? Just how long do you think it takes nothing to become something other than nothing performed all by nothing?

Do you know what nothing is? Nothing is the sort of thing rocks dream about. Nothing, no time, no anything, just nothing at all.

Can you do simple math? Zero plus Zero equal Zero; Nothing plus Nothing equal Nothing; Nothing times Nothing plus Nothing equal Nothing.

At what point does nothing become not nothing on its own? How many times nothing does it take for nothing plus nothing times nothing to become something?

Have you ever sat down and rationally thought through the validity of the universe and life coming from nothing with nothing causing everything to exist?

Second quote: “The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”

It takes the meme for blind faith to believe everything came from nothing by nothing at all.

1. Richard Dawkins. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved May 6, 2011, from BrainyQuote.com Web site:
   http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402494.html

Who is God?

Many atheists claim that God does not exist and as such they choose to not know who God really is. In their ignoring reality, making claims such as the universe created itself out of nothing; atheists try to make themselves feel better by making up gods to which they know do not exist while ignoring the one real and true God of the Holy Bible who has revealed Himself through the order and design of all of nature and universe.

To know who God is, we need to understand the attributes of God to get an understanding of who God is. Below are the known attributes of God.

SELF-EXISTENT: God has no cause; He does not depend on anything for his continued existence.

TRANSCENDENT: God is entirely distinct from the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench; excluding pantheism (God in all) and animism (everything is a god).

IMMANENT: Though transcendent, God is present with and in the world; excluding deism (God is out there but not here).

IMMUTABLE: God is perfect in that He never changes nor can He change with respect to His being, attributes, purpose, or promises; excluding process theology, Mormon doctrine of eternal progression.

ETERNAL: God is perfect in that He transcends all time and temporal limitations, and is thus infinite with respect to time.

OMNIPRESENT: God is perfect in that He transcends all space and spatial limitations, and is thus infinite with respect to space, with His whole Being filling every part of the universe and being present everywhere (not diffused through the universe, but present at each point in His fullness).

OMNIPOTENT: God is perfect in that He can do all things consistent with the perfection of His being.  God cannot do the self-contradictory (e.g., make a rock He cannot lift), nor can He do that which is contrary to His perfect nature (e.g., He cannot change, He cannot lie, etc.).

OMNISCIENT: God is perfect in that He knows all things, including events before they happen.

INCORPOREAL: God has no body or parts, and is immaterial, being a simple and infinite being of spirit; excluding the Mormon doctrine of God as an exalted man.

ONE: God is a perfectly unique and simple being, existing as one infinite Being called God.  There is therefore only one God, who is called Yahweh in the Old Testament, and who reveals Himself in the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the New Testament; thus excluding polytheism, tritheism (belief in three gods), and subordinationism (in which Christ is a lesser god subordinate to the Almighty God).

CREATOR: God is the One through whom all things have come into existence; by His unbounded power and knowledge He created finite existence ex nihilo and formed the universe as it now is.

PERSONAL:  God, as the author of personhood in the created universe, cannot be less than personal Himself; thus He experiences relationships with other persons, or self-conscious beings.  Note that God may be more than personal, indeed, His infinite nature suggests that He must be.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE: God is incomprehensible, not in the sense that the concept of God is unintelligible, but in the sense that God cannot be fully and directly known by finite creatures, because of His uniqueness and His infinitude.

MORALLY PERFECT: The following are the moral attributes of God; they are listed here together because God's moral nature is perfectly unified, with no tension between His wrath and His love, for example.

a. GOOD: God is morally excellent, and does only good

b. HOLY: God is morally transcendent, utterly separated from all evil, and perfectly pure

c. RIGHTEOUS: God is perfectly moral in all that He does, doing everything right

d. TRUE: God is perfectly truthful, and cannot lie

e. LOVING: God's moral character is pure love, sacrificial giving for the true benefit of another

f. WRATHFUL: God's moral perfection requires Him to show displeasure against anything which seeks to act contrary to its moral purpose, to judge that which rebels against His authority as Creator and Lord

To say that “God is omnipotent” means that His power is limitless, and, thus, God is capable of doing anything that is logically possible. This does not mean that God can do things that are absurd or irrational. It is absurd and irrational to think that God could create Himself because as we see from God’s attributes, God is not created.

In fact, the Bible is very clear that there are certain things God cannot do: He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). This is not because He lacks the power, but because He is true to His own nature. So, there is no contradiction in saying that God is all powerful (He can do anything that is logically possible), and yet He cannot do things that are logically impossible.

In fact, apart from the biblical God, we would have no reason to believe that contradictions are always wrong because the law of non-contradiction itself stems from the nature of God. All truth is in God (John 14:6; Colossians 2:3), and God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Thus, truth will not go against itself; it will not contradict. Apart from the biblical God, there would be no reason for the law of non-contradiction—or any law of logic.

Now you know the attributes of God as described in the Holy Bible and revealed through the order and design of all of nature and universe.

Main Resource: http://www.equip.org/articles/the-attributes-of-god

Really - Darwinism? No, not Really.

First Off

This article and corresponding video are not all encompassing; meaning they were done to get you to think for yourself and to not take anyone’s word for something and to hopefully entice you to actually do your own research on these topics. I suggest you (in fact dare you to) actually do your own straightforward honest research on these topics and not just jump to your preconceived notion about what these topics are from what you’ve been told by anyone; even me. I challenge you to honestly answer the twenty five questions at the end of this article and video. Also, at the end is a tidbit of historical background information you most likely didn’t know about natural selection.

Summary

Most students in evolutionary-biased education come to believe that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. However, seldom, if ever is the fact presented that for Darwinian Evolution to occur it is necessary for new genetic information to be added to a creature. To date, no example of completely new additional information from a naturally occurring mutation or selection has been observed. The diversity of species in, for example, dogs, cats and horses, has arisen because of their already-existing genetic information, acted upon by natural selection and mutations.(1)

Information

DNA is all around us. It is found in every plant and animal. You literally eat it at every meal. It is possible to extract pieces of DNA, consisting of billions of basic units (called “bases,” abbreviated as A, C, T, and G), with just a common onion and a few household chemicals.

It is amazing what you can hold in your hand. Each DNA strand is an extremely long molecule. While humans have about 3 billion bases in their DNA, the garden onion (Allium cepa) has 15 billion bases. If the DNA in a single human cell were stretched out it would be 6 feet (1.8 m) long, so imagine how long the DNA from an onion cell would be!

The DNA molecule is often compared to a book. The DNA bases (A, C, T, and G) form words called genes. The genes contain all sorts of information necessary for life. DNA is found in every living cell (at least that we know of). It is like a recipe book providing information for building and running the organism. Because each organism needs different information, the arrangement of DNA varies in each individual. Human DNA must contain information to make brains and eyeballs, while plant DNA provides information to make leaves and roots (such as onions). (6)

What’s Not Evolution?

Darwinism: all life on earth has come about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor (a hypothetical, primitive, single-celled organism).

Darwinism and Darwin Evolution used in correct context is defined as meaning “descent with modification from a common ancestor” or in other words (molecules-to-man evolution). Darwinism has never been observed.

What is Evolution?

The terms evolving and evolution used in correct context is defined as meaning “adaptation” or “limited change in a population over time” which can be clearly seen today in everyday life as we observe nature and when observing bacterium, fruit flies, different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, etc. All of these forms of life can change and have changed yet they only change within their form of life meaning that bacterium will always be bacterium and fruit flies will always be flies and dogs will always be dogs, etc. You can see this in dogs the so many different breeds of dogs. Take for example a pure Labrador and Poodle. You can breed two pure Labradors together and get pure Labradors and the same with two pure Poodles and get pure Poodles. You can breed a pure Labrador and Poodle together (and just why anyone would want to do this is beyond me) and get a 50% Labrador and 50% Poodle yet this 50/50 mix is still a dog no matter how many times it is done nor for however many years it is done.

Natural Selection

Evolution (not Darwinism) in the wild happens by natural selection. Natural selection is an observable process and has been shown to change organisms but always within the boundaries of the created kinds, i.e., dogs, cats, bacterium, flies, etc. This type of change is often termed “microevolution,” and the hypothetical type of change (Darwinism) that turns fish into philosophers is known as “macroevolution.” The large-scale changes through time are simply dramatic extrapolations of the observed phenomenon of natural selection. This degree of extrapolation has no basis in operational science. There are limits to the amount and type of genetic change that can occur—no matter what amount of time is allowed. As an illustration: if you can pedal a bicycle at 10 mph, how long would it take to reach the moon? Bicycles have limits that would make this goal impossible regardless of the time you have to accomplish it.(4)

Mutations

In the real world, mutations are responsible for a number of genetic defects, including hemophilia (bleeders’ disease), loss of protective color in the skin and eyes (albinism), and certain kinds of cancer and brain malfunction. We have abundant evidence that various kinds of radiations, errors in DNA replication, and certain chemicals can indeed produce mutations, and mutations in reproductive cells can be passed on to future generations. Mutations are certainly real. They have profound effects on our lives. And, according to the Darwinists, mutations are the raw material for Darwinism.

But is that possible? Can mutations produce real evolutionary changes? Don’t make any mistakes here. Mutations are real; they’re something we observe; they do make changes in traits. But the question remains: do they produce evolutionary changes? Do they really produce new traits? Do they really help to explain that postulated change from molecules to man, or fish to philosopher that Darwinism makes?(4)

As our understanding of genetics has improved, it has become increasingly clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal Darwinism. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral. Darwinism claims that the process has no direction or goal. If you look at the complexity of the “first” organism, it must be accepted that a massive amount of information has been produced to explain the variety of life we see today. Mutations cannot generate new genetic information; so they cannot be used to explain how Darwinism has proceeded from a cell with less information than is present in modern cells.(5)

How does (Darwinism) molecules-to-man have an information problem?

Information is the real heart of the problem for people who believe that life could have arisen by Darwinism. All life is built up on the basis of information. This information is contained in our DNA—the molecule of heredity. It’s like a series of letters and a code to read them.

A good comparison would be the Morse code. If you understand the code with dots and dashes representing letters of the alphabet, you can read something that’s put in Morse code.

If Darwinian evolution were true, then the very first organism had to have information in the form of letters and a code. Darwinists say that as organisms evolved, new information had to be continually added. In other words, millions of times over millions of years, new information would have to be generated by random processes and added to the genetic system.

Now here’s the clincher: No one has ever documented even just one instance of new information arising from matter by itself. All observations in science show clearly that information only comes from previously existing information, and ultimately from an intelligence. And this fits with creation—not Darwinism.

A major problem for Darwinism is the huge increase in information content of organisms through time. Darwinism accepts additions and deletions of information as evidence of evolution of a population. The problem is that through the imagined history of life on earth, the information content of the genomes of organisms must have increased dramatically.(5)

Bait and Switch

The ideas of natural selection, speciation, adaptation, and evolution are often used interchangeably by secular scientists. Many classroom textbooks also use the terms in this way. When scientists and authors use evolution to mean both “change in features over time” and “the history of life on earth,” it is difficult to know which definition is being used in each instance. This is often used as a bait-and-switch technique (equivocation). When small changes that arise as a result of the loss of information are used as evidence for molecules-to-man evolution (Darwinism), the switch has occurred.(5)

Questions to Consider

Recognizing the failure of the fossil record to display the gradual nature of Darwinian evolution, Stephen J. Gould resurrected the idea of Darwinism in big jumps known as “punctuated equilibrium.” Major remodeling of body plans could occur if regulator genes caused multiple changes at once. This would explain gaps in the fossil record, but it is not supported by observational science. Even if these creatures were born, what would they mate with?

Where did all the new information come from since mutations are known to reduce information?

Does similarity always prove that one structure evolved into another?

A large fish allows a small fish or shrimp to clean parasites from its mouth and then swims off without eating the cleaner. How could this relationship, and other irreducibly complex systems, have evolved one step at a time?

How do you select for the ability to fix a mutation that you don’t have?

How did the first organism survive without the second, and vice versa?

If you can pedal a bicycle at an average of 10 mph, how long would it take to reach the moon riding your bicycle taking a three hour break every fifth hour?

Is Darwinism a valid scientific idea since it cannot be observed in experiments and repeated to show that the conclusions it claims are valid?

What mechanisms do scientists use to explain how mutations can produce new information to make organisms more complex, when virtually all mutations cause a loss of information or no change at all?

Since information cannot be created from matter by purely natural mechanisms and since it is not a part of the material universe, how did information originate?

By what mechanism is new information added to genomes in Darwinian evolutionary history? Can the information gain be demonstrated experimentally?

What direct fossil evidence is there that fish could have evolved into amphibians? Could the alleged transitional fossils be interpreted in multiple ways?

When two lines of evidence contradict each other (e.g., if DNA suggests one Darwinian evolutionary relationship and anatomy suggests a different relationship), how do scientists decide which line of evidence is more compelling?

Why is Darwinism the key to understanding biology? Why is it necessary to know where the eye evolved from to understand how it works and how to treat it when it has a disease?

Why do examples of natural selection get equated with Darwinism when Darwinian evolution is not observable and natural selection is?

Why do biology textbooks include the photo of the peppered moth when scientists have shown it to be a fraud?

Should we accept everything that the text tells us about Darwinian evolution when the textbooks are constantly being changed and updated?

If Darwinian evolution is not directed by a purpose, would it be safe to say that human existence is purposeless?

What is the basis for truth and morality if human life is a byproduct of Darwinian evolutionary processes (random interactions of lifeless chemicals)?

Are humans more special or important than any other organism if there is no such thing as higher and lower animals in an Darwinian evolutionary framework?

Is it possible to know the original function of an organ that is called vestigial, like the appendix, when most tissues are not preserved in fossils and the ancestor cannot be examined? It would seem that there are many assumptions involved in making such a claim.

Does Darwinian evolution predict stasis or progress? Why are so many “living fossils” found that have remained the same for hundreds of millions of years while other species have evolved relatively rapidly?

There seem to be many different definitions of evolution; do all scientists agree on what evolution is? Which view of evolution is correct (punctuated equilibrium, neo-Darwinism, Darwinism, etc.)?

Why do scientists consider homologous structures evidence of a common ancestor when they seem to fit the expected pattern, but scientists call them examples of convergent evolution when they don’t fit the pattern?

What types of evidence would Darwinists accept as evidence against Darwinism?

Is “Just give it enough time and it will happen.” a scientific statement?

Historical Background on the Discovery of Natural Selection

Many people give credit to Charles Darwin for formulating the theory of natural selection as described in his book “On the Origin of Species.” Few people realize that Charles Darwin only popularized the idea and actually borrowed it from several other people, especially a creationist by the name of Edward Blyth. Blyth published several articles describing the process of natural selection in “Magazine of Natural History” between 1835 and 1837—a full 22 years before Darwin published his book “On the Origin of Species.” It is also known that Charles Darwin had copies of these magazines and that parts of “On The Origin of Species” are nearly verbatim from Blyth’s articles.(7)

Blyth, however, differed from Darwin in his starting assumptions. Blyth believed in God as the Creator, rather than the blind forces of nature. He believed that God created original kinds, that all modern species descended from those kinds, and that natural selection acted by conserving rather than originating. Blyth also believed that man was a separate creation from animals. This is especially important since humans are made in the image of God, an attribute that cannot be applied to animals (Genesis 1:27). Blyth seemed to view natural selection as a mechanism designed directly or indirectly by God to allow His creation to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. This is very different from Darwin’s view. Darwin wrote, “What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature.”(8)

References

1) http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/poodles.asp

2) D. O’Leary, By Design or by Chance? Castle Quay, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, 7, 2004.

3) Eugenie C. Scott, Creation or evolution? www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6261_creation_or_evolution__1_9_2001.asp.

4) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp

5) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution

6) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n3/dna-kitchen

7) J. Foard, The Darwin papers, “Edward Blyth and natural selection,” www.thedarwinpapers.com.

8) Letter from Charles Darwin to Joseph Hooker, Darwin Archives, Cambridge University, July 13, 1856.

9) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution#fnMark_1_7_1

Questions to Consider if You Believe Darwinism

Questions to Consider if You Believe Darwinism
1. Recognizing the failure of the fossil record to display the gradual nature of Darwinian evolution, Stephen J. Gould resurrected the idea of Darwinism in big jumps known as “punctuated equilibrium.” Major remodeling of body plans could occur if regulator genes caused multiple changes at once. This would explain gaps in the fossil record, but it is not supported by observational science. Even if these creatures were born, what would they mate with?

2. Where did all the new information come from since mutations are known to reduce information?

3. Does similarity always prove that one structure evolved into another?

4. A large fish allows a small fish or shrimp to clean parasites from its mouth and then swims off without eating the cleaner. How could this relationship, and other irreducibly complex systems, have evolved one step at a time?

5. How do you select for the ability to fix a mutation that you don’t have?

6. How did the first organism survive without the second, and vice versa?

7. If you can pedal a bicycle at an average of 10 mph, how long would it take to reach the moon riding your bicycle taking a three hour break every fifth hour?

8. Is Darwinism a valid scientific idea since it cannot be observed in experiments and repeated to show that the conclusions it claims are valid?

9. What mechanisms do scientists use to explain how mutations can produce new information to make organisms more complex, when virtually all mutations cause a loss of information or no change at all?

10. Since information cannot be created from matter by purely natural mechanisms and since it is not a part of the material universe, how did information originate?

11. By what mechanism is new information added to genomes in Darwinian evolutionary history? Can the information gain be demonstrated experimentally?

12. What direct fossil evidence is there that fish could have evolved into amphibians? Could the alleged transitional fossils be interpreted in multiple ways?

13. When two lines of evidence contradict each other (e.g., if DNA suggests one Darwinian evolutionary relationship and anatomy suggests a different relationship), how do scientists decide which line of evidence is more compelling?

14. Why is Darwinism the key to understanding biology? Why is it necessary to know where the eye evolved from to understand how it works and how to treat it when it has a disease?

15. Why do examples of natural selection get equated with Darwinism when Darwinian evolution is not observable and natural selection is?

16. Why do biology textbooks include the photo of the peppered moth when scientists have shown it to be a fraud?

17. Should we accept everything that the text tells us about Darwinian evolution when the textbooks are constantly being changed and updated?

18. If Darwinian evolution is not directed by a purpose, would it be safe to say that human existence is purposeless?

19. What is the basis for truth and morality if human life is a byproduct of Darwinian evolutionary processes (random interactions of lifeless chemicals)?

20. Are humans more special or important than any other organism if there is no such thing as higher and lower animals in an Darwinian evolutionary framework?

21. Is it possible to know the original function of an organ that is called vestigial, like the appendix, when most tissues are not preserved in fossils and the ancestor cannot be examined? It would seem that there are many assumptions involved in making such a claim.

22. Does Darwinian evolution predict stasis or progress? Why are so many “living fossils” found that have remained the same for hundreds of millions of years while other species have evolved relatively rapidly?

23. There seem to be many different definitions of evolution; do all scientists agree on what evolution is? Which view of evolution is correct (punctuated equilibrium, neo-Darwinism, Darwinism, etc.)?

24. Why do scientists consider homologous structures evidence of a common ancestor when they seem to fit the expected pattern, but scientists call them examples of convergent evolution when they don’t fit the pattern?

25. What types of evidence would Darwinists accept as evidence against Darwinism?

26. Is “Just give it enough time and it will happen.” a scientific statement?

Contemplating Suicide?

Here are just a few recent headlines that come nowhere close to describing today’s issue of suicide:

• A Princeton University Spanish teacher committed suicide in Chelsea after the Ivy League school failed to renew his contract.

• A man shot and killed his girlfriend and two 5-year-old twins before turning the gun on himself in a murder-suicide inside an SUV that was witnessed by three other children.

• Police are calling a Saturday afternoon’s shooting in Fairfield a murder-suicide after the gunman killed a man and woman and injured a second man before shooting himself.

• A fifth teenager has admitted she participated in the bullying of a 15-year-old Massachusetts girl who later committed suicide.

Really, this is a very serious question; are you thinking about committing suicide? You need to deeply consider your circumstances and your reactions to your current situations. You should never commit suicide… no matter what happens on earth. Suicide is murdering one’s self. Murder is against God’s commandments and thus is a sin and if you murder yourself, you don’t have any opportunity to repent of your act of self murder.

In the USA, the number of emergency department visits for self-inflicted injury was 666,000 and the total number of suicides was 34,598 in 2008. Currently, every 15 minutes, someone in Japan takes his or her own life in the island nation of 127 million, establishing suicide as the leading cause of death among Japanese men ages 20 to 44 and women ages 15 to 34.

The potential for depression is out there and becomes especially more likely when a person loses all hope because of their employment and/or financial situation; their breakup of marriage, or their boyfriend or girlfriend; bullies constant harassments; a loss of a loved one; sickness or a combination of pressing situations such as these. Thus the main issue with depression is what a person’s placement of hope is based upon.

You should never put your hope into your employment and financial situation because these are highly volatile and subject to change in an instant. No matter how stable you think your employment situation is, you can be unemployed. No matter how stable your financial situation is, you can become broke. No matter how healthy you are or how well established you think you are, your life can be disrupted in an instant due to things outside of your control.

You must remember that you are worth far more than your employment and financial status, even more valuable than your marital/dating status; and you are worth much more than what any bullies around you are saying about you. You are completely unique. You are a one of a kind individual and no one else is like you because there is only one you. There will only ever be one you. There was never you, before you were born.

You are made in God’s image with a purpose. (Proverbs 16:4) God’s unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into His own family by bringing us to Himself through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:5) God invites us to participate in the greatest, largest, most diverse, and most significant cause in history – his kingdom by sharing His love with everyone. (1 Peter 3:15) God tells us to have nothing to do with worldly myths and fables and to discipline ourselves for the purpose of godliness. (1 Timothy 4:7) God tells us to study and gain knowledge and to not be ignorant of fact and to refuse foolish and ignorant speculations. (Proverbs 4:5, 7; 16:16: 2 Timothy 2:23)

‘May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.’ (Romans 15:13)

‘Also, do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal; store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.’ (Matthew 6:19-21)

‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.’ (John 3:16)

‘Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.’ Romans 5:1-5

‘The same thing gets said about us when we embrace and believe the One who brought Jesus to life when the conditions were equally hopeless. The sacrificed Jesus made us fit for God, set us right with God.’ Romans 4:24-25

It is your choice to make whether or not to murder yourself. I suggest that you make a wise choice and not commit murder. Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. (James 4:14)

If you murder yourself, then your tomorrow will always be without hope. ‘What hope do people without God have when life is cut short?’ (Job 27:8)

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/japan-earthquake-aftermat_n_853429.html)
(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/21/princeton-professor-kills-self-losing-university-teaching-job-friend-says/?test=latestnews)
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/08/east-los-angeles-murder-suicide_n_859107.html)
(http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/05/08/fairfield-murder-suicide-leaves-3-dead-1-hurt)
(http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/05/5th-mass-teen-pleads-in-bullying-suicide-case)
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)

A Message of Love

‘Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love.

Honor one another above yourselves.

Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.

Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.

Share with God's people who are in need.

Practice hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.

Live in harmony with one another.

Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.

Do not be conceited.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil.

Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.’

Romans 12:9-19 NIV

Richard Dawkins Pitiless Indifference

Richard Dawkins has said; “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” (1)

Richard Dawkins is saying that there is no evil, no good and that we are all blind to and have pitiless indifference to what is happening around us and to our friends, family, and people everywhere.

Do you have a pitiless indifference to someone taking a puppy or kitten or baby and smashing it against a tree over and over again and again until its skull breaks and guts burst open? Do you turn a blind eye to someone for no medical reason taking your sister’s, brother’s, spouse’s, mom’, father’s, uncle’s, aunt’s, friend’s, arm and violently twisting and rippint it off at the shoulder? Do you show a pitiless indifference to someone aggressively murdering each of your family members systematically leaving you for their last victim? Would you turn a blind eye towards someone about to murder you? If you would turn a blind eye and have pitiless indifference to any of these you are evil.

Do you not have a respect and admiration for people who put their life in jeopardy to help someone they don’t even know get out of treacherous situation i.e., fire fighters, our military, and our police officers? Do you not call for justice when someone or a group of people are wronged? Do you not have respect and admiration for doctors and nurses who help people? Do you not want that everyone be healthy and live a full meaningful life? If you do any of these things you are not evil.

Thus leads us to a conclusion as to all of what Richard Dawkins said is meaningless and without merit if anyone (including you) in this world has ever not shown blind pitiless indifference to any injustice or if anyone (even you) has ever gone out of the way to help another person or animal in any way whatsoever.

1. Richard Dawkins. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved May 6, 2011, from BrainyQuote.com Web site: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402494.html

Atheist's Morality Nightmare

Atheist Tim lays down on a couch to take a nap only to find
himself in a abysmal moral quandary.

Angela suddenly standing beside Atheist Tim asks him, “Tim,
have you ever told a lie?”

A very startled Atheist Tim asks, “What?”

Angela: “Be not afraid Tim. I am here to lead you to truth.
Have you ever told a lie?”

Atheist Tim: “What concern is that of yours? And, who are
you, anyway?”

Angela: “My name is Angela and my purpose here with you
today is to insure that you Tim are fully aware of God’s moral standards by
which you are to be judged at your physical death and that you understand the
consequences of your breaking them. I am an Angel of our Lord and God sent me
to you because you showed interest in truth. Be honored as this is evidence you
requested.”

Atheist Tim: “Yea, right and I’m Santa’s little helper elf
tracking Santa’s list for him and if you don’t stop bothering me I’ll put you
on his naughty list. How did you get in here anyway? I can see that the door is
locked and bolted.”

Angela: “Tim, have you ever told a lie?”

Atheist Tim: “NO, I have never told a lie in my life. Now
get out and leave me alone or I’ll put you on Santa’s naughty list.”

Angela: “Tim, be truthful; have you ever told a lie?”

Atheist Tim: “YES, I have told at least one lie in my life.
So what? Everyone lies. Big deal.”

Angela: “Tim, the Ninth of the Ten Commandments is ‘You
shall not lie.’ Telling just one lie, according to God's standards, makes you a
"liar." In Revelation 21:8, God says, "...all liars, shall have
their part in the lake of fire..."

Atheist Tim: “Okay, you are now on Santa’s naughty list. Now
get out of here before I call the cops!”

Angela: “Tim, have you ever stolen anything (no matter how
small or worthless)?

Atheist Tim: “The cops won’t take me to jail for what little
I’ve stolen and that was a long time ago so leave now or I will call the cops
and have you taken away!”

Angela: Tim, the Eighth of the Ten Commandments is "You
shall not steal." Stealing just one thing (regardless of its size or
monetary value), according to God's standards, makes you a ‘thief.’ In 1st
Corinthians 6:10, God says, ‘No thieves... ...shall inherit the kingdom of
God.’”

Atheist Tim: “You keep talking like God is real and you have
not left yet so I’m going to help you out!” as he gets up and moves towards
Angela.

Angela: “I am not going to leave until I have completed what
our Lord God has sent me here to do.”

Atheist Tim: Reaching to take Angela by the arm to escort
her to the door replies: “Well you are just going to have to go without
completing your fairytale because I’m not going to listen to you and your mumbo
jumbo myths any longer.” Yet when he gets close to Angela, he can’t touch her
due to some kind of what seems to him as a force field stopping him from taking
her to the door, he walks right through her.

A very startled Atheist Tim: “What the..” as Angela
interrupts him.

Angela: “Tim, have you ever used "God,"
"Jesus," or "Christ," as a curse word? (Example "Oh my
G o d!")

Atheist Tim: Now perplexed, “Yes and I was just about to do
it again.”

Angela: “Tim, the Third of the Ten Commandments is "You
shall not take the name of the Lord in vain." If you've ever used the name
"God," "Jesus," or "Christ" as a curse word, what
you've done is take the name of the God who gave you your life, and you've used
it as if it were a "four-letter" filth word to express disgust and
hatred. That offense is called "blasphemy," and according to God's
standards, you are a "blasphemer." In Leviticus 24:16 , God says,
"he that blasphemes the name of the LORD, shall surely be put to
death..."

Atheist Tim: “So you say that God is going to kill me for
using his name as a curse word? Ha, and you expect me to believe that? What
evidence do you have to support your claim?”

Angela: “In Leviticus
24:16 , God says, "he that blasphemes the name of the LORD, shall surely
be put to death..."

Atheist Tim: “Now you are being circular!”

Angela: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven
against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by
their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because
God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s
invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Romans 1:18-20”

Atheist Tim: “That’s more Bible quotes. What do they have to
do with anything? I don’t have to believe in the Bible. I can believe in
whatever I want to believe in and I don’t believe in gods or your God.”

Angela: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires
of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one
another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served
created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Romans
1:24-25”

Atheist Tim: “And just what value does that supposed to have?”

Angela: “Furthermore, just as they did not think it
worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved
mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with
every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy,
murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters,
insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey
their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although
they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,
they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who
practice them.” Romans 1:28-32

Angela: “Tim, have you ever looked at someone and had
lustful thoughts?”

Atheist Tim: “Sure, I do it all the time; everyone does.
Why, what are you thinking?”

Angela: ‘“Tim, the Seventh of the Ten Commandments is
"You shall not commit adultery." If you've ever looked at another
person with lustful thoughts, according to God's standards, that makes you an
"adulterer." Jesus said, "You have heard it said, You shall not
commit adultery: But I say to you, that whoever looks on a woman to lust after
her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)
In 1st Corinthians 6:9-10, God says that no adulterers "...shall inherit
the kingdom of God."’

Atheist Tim: “Now God is judging me for what I think? My how
absurd is that! God’s the thought police! I’m so scared... NOT!”

Angela: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful
lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men,
and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1:26-27

Angela: “Tim, have you ever broken the first Commandment?”

Atheist Tim: “I don’t even know nor do I really care what
the first Commandment is so why would I be concerned about breaking it?”

Angela: “Tim, the First of the Ten Commandments is "You
shall have no other gods before me." That means that we should love God
with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength. The Bible tells us that no one
has kept this commandment. (see Psalm 14:2-3)

Atheist Tim: “So, why should I be concerned about breaking
it if no one has kept it?”

Angela: “Tim, by your own account, it has been established
that you are guilty of breaking five of God’s commandments. Tim, knowing that
you are guilty of breaking God's commandments, do you think you would go to
Heaven or Hell?”

Atheist Tim: “I’m not concerned about Heaven or Hell. Why
should I be?”

Angela: “Tim, would you sell one of your eyes for a million
dollars? How about both eyes for ten million dollars?”

Atheist Tim: “No one in their right mind would do such a
stupid thing!”

Angela: “Your eyes are precious to you... but they are only
a "window" for your soul Tim. Your soul (your inner being, your life,
your personality) looks out through those eyes. Consider how precious your eyes
are... then realize that Jesus said that Hell is so horrible that you would be
better off tearing out your own eyes than ending up there for all eternity
(Mark 9:43-48).

Atheist Tim: “Hell doesn’t exist.”

Angela: “Your un-belief in Hell Tim can be likened to
standing in the middle of a busy interstate highway and shouting loudly,
"I don't believe in trucks!" Your belief or disbelief in trucks will
not change the reality that trucks exist. The same applies here as your
disbelief in Hell will not cause Hell to cease to exist.”

Angela: “Revelation 14:10,11 tells us the final, eternal
destiny of the sinner: “He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone...the
smoke of their torment ascended up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day
or night."

Angela: The Bible refers to the fate of the unbelievers with
such fearful words as:

• “Shame
  and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2)


• “Everlasting
  punishment” (Matthew 25:46)


• “Weeping
  and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 24:51)


• “Fire
  unquenchable” (Luke 3:17)


• “Indignation
  and wrath, tribulation and anguish” (Romans 2:8,9)


• “Everlasting
  destruction from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thessalonians 1:9)


• “Eternal
  fire...the blackness of darkness forever” (Jude 7,13)

Angela: “It is not enjoyable for me speaking in detail about
the torments of Hell. It is, however, a real place and God in his love and
mercy does not want you to go there.”

Atheist Tim: “If God really loves me then He will let me go
to Heaven because I’m really not a bad person and I’ve done a lot of good
things.”

Angela: While it may seem that God's goodness will cause Him
to overlook your sins, the opposite is actually true. Perhaps the following
illustration will add some clarity: Imagine you're standing before a judge,
guilty of multiple crimes. The judge is about to pass sentence when he asks,
"Do you have anything to say for yourself?"

Angela: You stand up, look the judge in the eye and say,
"Yes Your Honor, I believe that you're a good man... and because you're
good, you will let me go." The judge will probably say something like,
"Well, you're right about one thing... I am a good man. And it's because
I'm good that I'm going to see that you are punished for your crimes.

Angela: “The very thing you are counting on to save you on
the Day of Judgment -- namely God's goodness -- is going to be the very thing
that will see to it that justice is done. Because God is so good He will make
sure that every murderer, rapist and thief receives justice... but He won't
stop there. He will also make sure every liar, blasphemer, and adulterer is
punished. While this is something that is extremely tragic and far from God's ultimate
desire for any person, the Bible is clear that the place of punishment for
those who do not turn from their sins is Hell.”

Atheist Tim: Almost shouting; “So you are telling me that I
am going to Hell and there’s nothing that I can do to stop it? You said that
God loved me and that He doesn’t want me to go to Hell yet He has given to me
no way to not go there! He says that I go to Hell for lying, for stealing, for
lust, for calling Him names, and for not making Him my only God and has all
these Commandments which are stacked against me and even says that no one has
ever done the first one! Just what does this God expect me to do?”

Angela: “Think of it this way, Tim... Imagine you're in a
courtroom again, you're guilty of many serious crimes. The judge says,
"It's a fine of $34,234,472,500,000, or prison for life." You don't
have anywhere near that amount of money, so the bailiff begins to walk you out
of the courtroom when someone you don't even know appears. He runs up to the
judge with a check and says, "I've paid the fine in full for you."

Angela: “Now that the fine has been paid, the law no longer
has any hold on you. You're free -- because of the gift you were given.”

Angela: “This is what God did for you by sending Jesus to
die on the cross in your place. So that you wouldn't have to go to Hell, God
sent his only Son, Jesus, to die on the cross -- suffering the punishment that
justice demands. Then He rose from the grave, forever defeating death!”

Angela: “The Bible tells us, "For God so loved the
world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him,
shall not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Angela: Tim, if you will repent of your sins and put your
trust in Jesus, God says He will forgive all your sins and grant you the gift
of everlasting life. Just like the court case we just talked about, if you
repent (that means to confess and forsake your sins) and put your trust in
Jesus as full payment for your sins, then you will not have to suffer God's
justice in Hell because the payment for your crimes was made by Jesus on the
cross.”

Atheist Tim: “But I’ve never prayed before in my life...
what should I say?”

Angela: “Tim, read Psalm 51, and make it a model for your
prayer. Remember, the words are not "magical" in any way. What God
cares about is the attitude of your heart during and after your prayer.

Angela: When you pray, it should sound something like this,
"Dear God, I repent of all my sins, such as (name them). I put my trust in
Jesus Christ as Lord (to say Jesus is your Lord means you are now making Jesus
the master over your life) and Savior. Forgive me and grant me your gift of
everlasting life. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen."

As Angela fulfilled her purpose while being there with
Atheist Tim, he woke up from his nap contemplating intensely at what he had
just encountered.

Why is the Bible so Wrong on so Many Things?

flypaper4weirdos from YouTube asks, “Why is the bible wrong on so many things?”

Obviously flypaper4weirdos is mistaking the Holy Bible with say the writings of Buda, the
Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation (NWT)
because the Holy Bible is in no way wrong about anything. In fact, the Holy
Bible is confirmed by science, archeology, astronomy, biology, and in every
other form of real science and includes eyewitnesses to many of the events
actually being discussed in it.

Yet however, the writings of Buda, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the Jehovah Witness
New World Translation (NWT) fail any confirmations by science, archeology,
astronomy, biology, and they also fail any other form of real science including
not having any eyewitnesses to the events being discussed in them.

So flypaper4weirdos question about the Holy Bible, “Why is the bible wrong on so
many things?” is moot and meaningless. The Holy Bible is not wrong on anything.

Thank you flypaper4weirdos for your question. I suggest that you actually seek the
truth and not have apathy towards it today as you may not be alive tomorrow.
God bless you.

The Bible Really does Endorse Slavery!

Definition of Slavery

“The word 'slavery' is such a powerful word today in our society because of the slavery reminded to us by those in rather recent United States history who had family members enslaved as a type of forced labor against their will. Scholars in the ANE have often abandoned the use of the general term 'slavery' in descriptions of the many diverse forms of master-servant that are manifest in the ancient world. There are very few 'true' slave societies in the world (with Rome and Greek being two of the major ones!), and ancient Israel will be seen to be outside this classification as well (in legislation, not practice). "Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semi-voluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films... From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features... In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom... "Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996: 4:1190f

Slavery in the Old Testament

Slavery was a deeply rooted part of the economy and social structure of the ancient Near E and of the Graeco-Roman world. There were many ways a person could become a slave.

The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there is no monolithic 'institution' of slavery in the bible--e.g. the Old Testament has SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what passed as slavery in the Ancient Near East (ANE) is no longer considered such in socio-economic understandings of the period and area. The Old Testament tells about slavery from military conquest (Numbers 31:7-35; Deuteronomy 20:10-18; 2 Chronicles 28:8-15); how people could be bought and sold as slaves (Exodus 21:26-27; Leviticus 24:17); how people would sell their children to pay debt (2 Kings 4:1-7); obtain a slave as a gift (Gen 29:24) ; inherit a slave (Leviticus 25:46); and of how children of slaves became property of the master even if the father later became a free man (Exodus 21:4; Leviticus 25:54). One of the main reasons a person would become a slave was insolvency (bankruptcy), a person who was in default of payment for his debts laws of Exodus ( 21:2-4 ) and Deuteronomy ( 15:12 ). One of the reasons for insolvency was the high rates of interest charged in the ancient world (kind of like the rates for some credit cards today). The Israelites were protected, in theory at least, from this by legislation, written in Exodus, and repeated in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which forbade them to charge interest of their fellow Israelites.

In the Old Testament God does endorse, encourage, and justify forced labor as an option instead of having Israel go into battle against those enemies who first attacked them. God told the Israelites once they marched to a city that prior to their attack that they would; “… make its people an offer of peace.  If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you[Israelites]. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.” (Deuteronomy 20:10-11) This endorsement of forced labor by God was strictly and only for the Israelites to make to those people who had attacked them as an alternative to waging war with proven enemies and at that timeframe only and it was for no one else and nowhere else in the Bible is forced labor slavery endorsed for anyone else in either the Old or New Testaments. Also, the Old and New Testaments are written and thus God will not ever endorse, encourage, and justify forced labor slavery to anyone ever again.

Reading the Bible in context you will see that God gave specific commands to protect slaves that the Israelites had. You may say as reading Exodus 21:20-21 out of context that a slave owner is, “essentially permitted to beat a slave as severely as he would like, so long as he does not kill the slave” and shall suffer no repercussions. Note that reading Exodus 21:20-21 in context if a “slave recovers after a day or two” there is no punishment yet if longer than a day or two, there would be punishment. How many cuts and bruises do you get that heal in a day or two? When I get a small cut or bruise I normally take about a week to heal and even longer if they are sever cuts and bruises. So if the slave had injuries which lasted longer than a day or two, the person inflecting the injuries would be punished. Why would God give such a requirement if He has “no problem” with one man owning another as property?

Note too that God commands the Israelites to allow that if a slave leaves his master, that the slave be given refuge and not returned to the master. A slave could leave his/her master at any time and by God’s commandment, the slave was to not be returned to his/her master. If God has “no problem” with one man owning another as property, why would God command that a slave be not returned to his/her master if the slave left? “If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.” (Deuteronomy 23.15-16) Note that God made no reference to which slave be it an Israelite slave or otherwise.

Slavery in the New Testament

Christ and the apostles in regard to the slave society in which they lived reminded their converts who were slaves to obey their masters reminding them that their work being done is as for the Lord rather than for men; letting them know that from the Lord they will receive the reward of the inheritance. (Ephesians 6:1-9; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1-5; 1 Peter 2:13-25). Paul further suggested that a runaway Christian slave voluntarily return to his master so to help the master become a Christian (Philemon 1:8-25).

Nowhere was it suggested that Christians give up their slaves, but masters were exhorted to treat their slaves with kindness and consideration (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1) beyond what was commanded in the Old Testament. In short, the institution of slavery was not condemned, but its abuses were. The apostles’ attitude is best explained by the unique way in which Romans of the 1st century a.d. treated their slaves, and released them in great numbers.

There is one form of slavery which is highly justified, encouraged, and fully endorsed found in the New Testament. This form of slavery isn’t people owning people as property as GoodWithout_God’s claim; moreover, it’s the relationship between God and a disciple of God once a person repents of his sin and accepts Christ Jesus as full payment for his sins (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13; Romans 16:18). We are to be: “… slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.” (Ephesians 6:6)

You ask what the will of God is? “`YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’” (Matthew 22:37-39)

This is the slavery which the Bible fully encourages and endorses. This form of slavery is purely up to the individual’s choosing in becoming a slave to God.

Summary about GoodWithout_God’s Claim about Slavery the Bible

Please notice that God gave you and me the power to choose what we want to do and requested that we follow the Ten Commandments. Well, God gave our ancestors (those people who wrote and were written about in the Bible) the same power to choose and requested them to follow the Ten Commandments too. Notice a pattern? God leaves it up to us to choose to do the right thing or not… notice we cannot even do the right thing today because we fail in so many ways; hunger all over the world, sicknesses due to our overindulgent ways, sex trafficking, pornography, slander, fortification, and other forms of slavery all because you and I (and everyone else) don’t put enough love into God and our fellow human beings. Instead, we focus mainly on ourselves and our own pleasures.

Clearly the Bible is the bloodiest book in all history with it not covering up any of mankind’s shortcomings, plainly describing mankind’s selfishness and quest for power. Many of the people who wrote the Bible were put to death resulting from their work on it and forfeiting their lives for their belief in it. The Holy Bible is also the most precious book on earth giving to us in its New Testament the good news of Jesus Christ who with His blood, freely paid the price for your and my sins so that if only we place our trust in Him, that we will be saved from our sins for ever and ever. God leaves it up to you and me to choose to accept Him as our master or not. God does not force Himself upon anyone.

Clearly for GoodWithout_God from Twitter to make the claim that people owning people as property is justified, encouraged, and endorsed as something correct and proper to do in the Bible shows that he has not read the Bible in context if at all. Nor can GoodWithout_God from twitter believe without taking the Bible out of context, that the Bible says that it is okay to have people being brought and sold like current day sex slave markets of young boys and girls, men and women of all ages. The Bible makes it very clear that people being bought and sold and owned as property is wrong (Matthew 22:34-40).

GoodWithout_God in making the claim that the Bible justifies, encourages, and endorses people owning people as property is okay with God is either a purely and totally ignorant claim founded off of what someone has told him rather than him actually taking some time to properly research it like I did or he is a totally adulterated callous and deceitful man trying to deceive people with lies about the Bible; taking it out of context, hoping that people hearing him will not read it for themselves and discover the truth.

For anyone to hear and believe such rubbish about the Bible endorsing, encouraging, and justifying people to own people as property is just pure chosen foolish ignorance of anyone who chooses to believe it without actually reading the Bible in context. The truth is clearly written in the Bible for everyone who cares about truth to read it on their own. Don’t just take my word for the Bible’s stance on slavery. I suggest that you actually read the Bible yourself but don’t do it unless you read it all and that you read it all in context. If you are only taking someone else’s word for it, even if it is my word you are taking for it, you are not fully taking into consideration the truth. You should not have apathy to truth. Your life on earth is far too short for you to spend eternity being wrong because you chose to believe a lie.

Answer

Yes, the Bible includes a lot of information about slavery. Like the news we see and hear today on TV and radio, the Bible tells about how wicked mankind can be when it comes to wanting to control people and control wealth in various ways including the wickedness of people owning and treating people as property. The Bible, never justifies slavery of people owning and treating people as property. The Bible only endorses, encourages, and justifies slavery between God as Master and you and me as slaves to Him if we choose to be a slave to Him.

Thank you GoodWithout_God for your sharing your claim with me which brought me to research what the Bible actually states about slavery. I hope you choose to read the Bible in context, repent of your sins and accept Christ Jesus as full payment for your sins thus becoming a slave to Christ Jesus. God bless you.

Did God Require Child Sacrifices?

joestfrancois from YouTube asks, “Was Abraham going to kill his son for your [G]od or not?”

Reading the Bible in Context helps One Understand Truth

It is clear for anyone reading the Bible in context what Abraham believed would happen and what he was planning on doing. It is a rather short chapter of history so I suggest that you read it. You can read it from the New Living Translation (NLT) as it is easier to read than the King James Version. Both versions however, describe the same history.

In Genesis 22:1-24 we are told how Abraham’s faith (trust) in God was tested.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022:1-24&version=NLT

After reading Genesis 22:1-24, a few verses clearly stand out as to what Abraham was thinking and what his plans were. It is also very clear what God was doing and had planned. I’ll call them out so to bring them to your attention too if by chance you did not catch them during your reading or that you chose to ignore them when you read them or if you chose to not even read it at all.

The first verse that stands clearly out to anyone reading the Bible in context is;

Genesis 22:5 “Stay here with the donkey,” Abraham told the servants. “The boy and I will travel a little farther. We will worship there, and then we will come right back.”

Notice how Abraham told his servants that Isaac and he would be going to worship and that they both would be coming right back. We know Abraham was planning on returning together with his son Isaac because he said; “and then we will come right back.”

The second verse standing out clearly shows what Abraham was thinking would happen;

Genesis 22:8 “God will provide a sheep for the burnt offering, my son,” ‘Abraham answered [his son Isaac]. And they both walked on together.’

Abraham believed that God would provide a sheep for worshiping God. We know this because Abraham answered Isaac’s question with; “God will provide a sheep for the burnt offering, my son,”

The third set of verses outstanding describes to us how much fear Abraham had of God and above all, how much Abraham trusted God;

Genesis 22:9 – 10 “When they arrived at the place where God had told him to go, Abraham built an altar and arranged the wood on it. Then he tied his son, Isaac, and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. And Abraham picked up the knife to kill his son as a sacrifice.”

We know from the promise God had made to Abraham before Isaac was even conceived that Isaac would be the first born of a multitude of nations and kings from Abraham and Sarah. (See Genesis 17:1-27) Through the miraculous birth of Isaac, Abraham knew God kept His promises. Abraham also knew what happens to those who don’t fear God. We know that Abraham feared God because he picked up the knife to kill his son Isaac.

The verse which clearly puts everything into perspective is the fourth set of verses;

Genesis 22:12-13 '“Don’t lay a hand on the boy!” the angel said. “Do not hurt him in any way, for now I know that you truly fear God. You have not withheld from me even your son, your only son.” Then Abraham looked up and saw a ram caught by its horns in a thicket. So he took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering in place of his son.'

Here we see that Abraham was right in his saying that he and Isaac would be returning after worshiping God. We also learn that Abraham was right when he said that God would provide the sheep as a burnt offering. Also, we learn that Abraham was right to trust God. Above all, we learn that God did not and does not require child sacrifices as He stopped Abraham from killing his son Isaac.

Answer

joestfrancois from YouTube to answer your question of, “Was Abraham going to kill his son for your [G]od or not?” all you need to do is to read in context the Bible;

Genesis 22:10 “And Abraham picked up the knife to kill his son as a sacrifice.”

Thank you joestfrancious for your question; God bless you.

Questions about the Bible

autonerf from YouTube asks a number of good questions about the Bible (God’s Word).

Why are there so many versions of God's word today, and which version do you believe to be the most accurate?

Why are there so many interpretations of the meaning of God's word?

Does God allow His word to be changed, added to, or deleted from?

Could God have written His word on a large sheet of metal or rock, so that it would not crumble away like the ancient paper manuscripts did?

Why does the Bible need to be so long to tell the good news of salvation?

Answers

The Holy Bible is a world best seller and no other book has ever out sold it. It is the bloodiest book in all history with many of its writers’ death resulting from their work on it and forfeiting their lives for their trusts in it. The Holy Bible is also the most precious book on earth giving to us in its New Testament the good news of Jesus Christ who with His blood, freely paid the price for your and my sins so that if only we place our faith in Him, that we will be saved from our sins for ever and ever.

God gave to us His word and there’s over 5,000 copies of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are in existence and around 20,000 more translations in languages like Latin, Coptic, and Syriac. Originally written in Greek, the earliest manuscript fragments can be traced back to within seventy years after Christ’s death and resurrection. With accumulation of fragments within two centuries of Christ’s death and resurrection, there are enough one can piece most of the New Testament together from them. In contrast, there are only seven manuscript copies of Plato’s Dialogues with a 1,300 year gap between the earliest 8th century A.D. copy and the original 5th century B.C. copy. Faring better than Plato but still far behind the New Testament, homer’s Iliad has only 650 copies with a 1,000 year gap between the earliest 2nd century A.D. copy and the 8th century B.C. original. The New Testament is by far the stronger supported manuscript of any classical literature.

God gave to us free will. With the free will God gave us comes free choice. Some people going against God’s command to not add to, take from, or change His word have done so, i.e., Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and Catholics. God if He had wanted to could have made the original ancient manuscripts from whatever they were written on not decay at all so that they lasted forever; however God knew that people would worship these original ancient manuscripts instead of Him if that was what He did.

There are so many “versions’ of God’s word today because there are so many languages people read and speak and languages overtime change. Most “versions” are accurate however some are not. Take for example the New World Translation (NWT) made up by Jehovah Witnesses; NWT is an extremely poor translation because instead of translating manuscript documents; they added to, took away from, and changed original manuscripts to make the NWT fit the falsehoods of what their Watchtower cult teaches. The same goes for the Book of Mormon which is a cult teaching falsehoods not even based on the Bible.

It is best to use a number of different orthodox (conventional translations which are based upon the manuscripts we have) translations as each help one understand fuller God’s message to us. The various orthodox translations help understanding because they express the same message a bit differently, conveying to the reader to apprehend what was originally written. They express the same message a bit differently because they are written to for example more modern English such as the NIV as opposed to an older English in The King James Version. Each of these versions expresses the manuscript documents we have and due to their use of different versions of English, reading the same passage in both brings new insight into its message.

On the web I use biblemaster.com and biblegateway.com because they have a number of orthodox translations available also in various languages. At home, I have two primary Bibles I use; The King James Study Bible by Nelson and Life Application Study Bible, New International Version by Zondervan. I also have an American Standard Version of the Bible in print and a number of different versions on Kindle.

The Bible is so long (66 books, hundreds and hundreds of pages written by ~40 people over ~3000 years) because its length helps us understand the what, why, and how of salvation. It’s duration over time giving and revealing the same harmonizing message without contradiction helps make events in it believable. If the salvation events had just suddenly occurred one day without any prior notice of it coming, it would be less likely to have actually happened and by far harder to believe it happened. The Old Testament gives us the history of how everything became into being (Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.) and proceeds (Genesis 3) to tell us why we are sinful and about God’s plan of salvation for us. The rest of the Old Testament gives us examples of just how wicked we (mankind) are and it gives specific prophecy (detailed predictions) about world events to come and about the Savior who will come to earth and save us. The prophecy given in the Old Testament about the Savior coming was written hundreds of years before the Savior actually came and was written about in the New Testament. The New Testament details how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy about a Savior coming. The New Testament also gives us prophecy about world events to come (some of which we see happening in the news today) and about the Savior’s second coming.

As always, do not just take my word for answers to your questions. Do your own research as it is your life that you live and you are responsible for yourself. Don’t have apathy toward truth.

Thank you autonerf from YouTube for your questions. God bless you!

Does God Answer Prayer?

GoodWithout_God from Twitter asks: Do you think your [G]od ignored & rejected the prayers of the people these actors from the movie "God on Trial"portray? Giving to me a link to a specific scene from the movie where one of the actors launches into a series of questions that explore God's actions from the escape from Egypt to the present day of WWII which is the timeframe when this movie’s storyline supposedly took place.

Quick Research

Doing a quick bit of research into the movie, “God on Trial” you will discover that the storyline was inspired by the ‘legend’ that a group of concentration camp prisoners conducted a mock trial against the Almighty God. (1) A legend is a narrative of human actions that are perceived to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale authenticity. Legend, for its active and passive participants includes no happenings that are outside the realm of "possibility", defined by a highly flexible set of parameters, which may include miracles that are perceived as actually having happened, within the specific tradition of indoctrination where the legend arises, and within which it may be transformed over time, in order to keep it fresh and vital, and realistic.(2) So from the start, GoodWithout_God’s question is faulted as with the storyline being merely legend, the actors are only portraying people described in a fable which are not and were not ever real.

My reply to GoodWithout_God was that the movie is merely a legend and from (Deuteronomy 6:16) that "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, ... "  I also stated that only prayers of true faith in God are answered by God.

Another Question

With the truth about the movie now known and my quick reply back, let’s get to the next question GoodWithout_God asks: “So all of the 5 million+ Jews and Christians (polish political prisoners for example) that were killed during the holocaust, their prayers were ignored because they weren't faithful enough?

What we don’t Know

We do not know what the prayers of each of the ~6 million (3) Jews and Christians (polish political prisoners for example) were but we do know why the ~6 million Jews and Christians (polish political prisoners for example) were murdered. They were murdered because Adolf Hitler rejected God and instead placed his beliefs into his own opinions as morals. Laws do not come from nowhere. They must come from lawmakers or lawgivers. If there is no God, laws must come from humans; that is, they must be derived from the best and worst proposals of humankind. To embrace atheism is to embrace a world without any transcendent Lawgiver. Thus Adolf Hitler took it upon himself with his rejection of God to embrace his own law and to enforce it upon everyone inferior to him through his belief in his own opinions. If Adolf Hitler had not rejected God he would have followed what Jesus told us to do in Matthew 22:34-40 yet Adolf Hitler did reject God and thus directly did the exact opposite of what Jesus told us to do in Matthew 22:34-40.

Further Research

Unlike the movie “God on Trial” which is merely a legend, we do know the thoughts and prayers of Elie Wiesel, a real Jewish survivor of the Holocaust. Jewish people already accept Elie Wiesel as perhaps the most well-known and respected voice of the Shoah. Elie Wiesel was born in 1928 to a religious family in the village of Sighet, Transylvania. He received a traditional Talmudic education, studying with the Chasidic rabbis in the village. In 1944, the Nazis deported all of Sighet’s Jewish inhabitants to various concentration camps. Wiesel’s mother, father, younger sister, and other relatives were murdered. His two other sisters survived. (4)

Wiesel’s experience during the Holocaust

Describing his life during the Holocaust in Night (5); Wiesel described a hanging that he witnessed when he was only 16 years old:

[The head of the camp] had a young boy under him…a child with a refined and beautiful face….

One day when we came back from work, we saw three gallows rearing up in the assembly place….SS all around us, machine guns trained: the traditional ceremony. Three victims in chains—and one of them, the little servant, the sad-eyed angel….

All eyes were on the child. He was lividly pale, almost calm, biting his lips….

The three victims mounted together onto the chairs.

The three necks were placed at the same moment within the nooses….

“Where is God? Where is He?” someone behind me asked.

At a sign from the head of the camp, the three chairs tipped over.

Total silence throughout the camp. On the horizon, the sun was setting….

We were weeping….

Then the march past began. The two adults were no longer alive. Their tongues hung swollen, blue-tinged. But the third rope was still moving; being so light, the child was still alive….

For more than half an hour he stayed there, struggling between life and death, dying in slow agony before our eyes. And we had to look him full in the face. He was still alive when I passed in front of him. His tongue was still red, his eyes not yet glazed.

Behind me, I heard the same man asking: “Where is God now?”

And I heard a voice within me answer him: “Where is He? Here He is—He is hanging here on this gallows.”(6)

The immediate impact of these events on Elie Wiesel at the young age of 16 years was an emotional atheism. Wiesel believed at that very point that his God died. Many Jews believe that evil won out and that God died in the Holocaust which settles the quandary for them, but it didn’t settle it for Wiesel. His bitter experiences during those horrific years of the Holocaust didn’t deprive him of belief in God once-and-for-all… but it did make him seriously question his belief in God.

After the Holocaust Wiesel’s Further Reflection

Wiesel adjusted some of his perspectives on the Holocaust as time pasted and told about his shift in perspective in his more reflective writings and discussions about the Holocaust. Wiesel affirmed in a 1967 journal article (7) that any genuine protest against God—such as those of Abraham (Gen 18), Moses and Aaron (Exod 5, 32; Num. 16), Job (Job 13, etc.), David (Psalms 10, 13, etc.), Jeremiah (Jer. 12; Lam. 3, etc.), and Habakkuk (Hab. 1)—must come from within the covenant context, not from without. Specifically, he stated, “The Jew…may rise against God, provided that he [the Jew] remains within God.”

Wiesel in 1974 testified to his own ongoing struggle with God when he declared, “To be a Jew is to have all the reasons in the world not to have faith…in God, but to go on telling the tale…and [having your] own silent…quarrels with God.” (8) Here Wiesel emotionally refuses to embrace the painful reality of the God of his own Jewish tradition; as does Jacob in the past, the rational Wiesel grapples with God as a living Being, seeking blessing for himself and his people.

In Wiesel’s book “The Trial of God” (1977), he depicts a trial in which a man accuses God of "hostility, cruelty and indifference." (9) Wiesel expressed the following in a TV interview in 1979 (10): “For a Jew to believe in God is good. For a Jew to protest against God is still good. But to simply ignore God, that is not good. Anger, yes. Protest, yes. Affirmation, yes. But indifference to God, no. You can be a Jew with God; you can be a Jew against God; but not without God.”

Why Maintain Faith in God?

Wiesel, throughout his life, refused to completely abandon his belief in God as caretaker of His people, while at the same time he questioned God’s seemingly indifference to Jewish suffering. Why would Wiesel (or anyone for that matter) withstand all of this existential tension? What would drive someone like Wiesel to maintain his theism (faith in God) when religious atheism seems to be more viable especially after all he had gone through and had seen during the Holocaust? It is likely that Wiesel ultimately refused to abandon God altogether because he was able to envision the logical consequences of his Holocaust-induced religious atheism.

Wiesel realized that laws do not come from nowhere. They must come from lawmakers or lawgivers. If there is no God, laws must come from humans; that is, they must be derived from the best and worst proposals of humankind. To embrace atheism is to embrace a world without any transcendent Lawgiver. Hitler (although not a proclaimed atheist) we know rejected what Jesus told us to do in Matthew 22:34-40 thus rejecting God and therefore directly did the exact opposite of what Jesus told us to do in Matthew 22:34-40. In his rejecting God and God’s commandments for us to follow in Matthew 22:34-40, Hitler derived his own set of commandments in which to govern and control people.

Without a transcendent moral Lawgiver there can be no transcendent moral laws, and the people who govern or control therefore will be the elite who are in power, either the consenting majority or the empowered minority or individual (e.g., Hitler and the Nazis). As Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) observed in his novel The Brothers Karamazov, if there is no transcendent rule or reign of law, that is, “if there is no God, all things are permissible.” Therefore indeed, a world without a transcendent Lawgiver (as it was demonstrated in Germany during the Holocaust under Hitler’s rule) is a world that is devoid of any true meaning, purpose, and value thus subject to being ruled by opinions of someone who could become in power like Adolf Hitler.

In such a Holocaust kingdom (as was Germany under Hitler), it makes perfectly good sense to destroy the undesirable (e.g., the Jewish, the Gypsies, the political dissidents, the homosexuals, etc.) before they destroy the desirable (i.e., the Aryans). Auschwitz (and other death camps) was the logical outcome of such a humanistic, relativistic worldview. (11) Without the moral restraint of a transcendent set of laws from a transcendent moral Lawgiver, anarchy inevitably will result (Rom. 1:18–32; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). With Hitler rejecting God and not following Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 22:34-40, Hitler created his own laws based from his opinions on what he wanted he and his followers to do which he had carried out.

Ironically

The “higher” laws of The Hague and Geneva Conventions ironically, were used in the Nuremberg and other International War Tribunals, that served to convict and punish the Nazis for crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. (12) These two modern war conventions were born out of the Middle Ages and grounded in biblical worldviews that were committed to a transcendent moral or natural law, to which all men were accountable. (13) “There was a strong Christian influence that led to international gatherings such as the Hague Conferences….From these meetings came decisions that limited the nature of war, protected the rights of prisoners of war, affirmed the need to care for the sick and the wounded, promised protection of private property and guaranteed the rights of neutrals.” (14) This transcendent moral law is nothing less than the universal law of God “written on human hearts” (Romans 2:14–16; cf. Acts 17:22–31). (15)

Wiesel appears to understand that it is important to remain committed to the divine Judge and Lawgiver, as Abraham did when he proclaimed, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Gen 18:25). Perhaps Wiesel believes this because he knows the serious consequences of atheism, the second of which follows.

Absolutely

Like laws, morals and ethics do not come from nowhere; they come from moral and ethical determiners. Any set of morals that is not transcendently based, that is, determined from outside the human frame of reference, of necessity must be determined from within the human context. This means that any moral or ethical system derived from such a godless world must be relative to its very core. We, accordingly, could not talk about “morals” (i.e., prescriptive norms: what people ought to do), but only about “mores” (descriptive norms: what people actually do).

Philosopher Norman Geisler states this dilemma as follows: “How would you know that the Holocaust is ultimately wrong [or evil] unless you knew what was ultimately right? If you don’t have an absolute standard for right, you can’t say that [the Holocaust] is absolutely wrong. That’s just your opinion, and somebody else’s opinion could be, the Holocaust was the best thing in the history of mankind.”(16) Geisler and Turek make this same point in relationship to Hitler’s actions and the Nuremberg War Tribunal:

When the Nazi War criminals were brought to trial in Nuremberg, they were convicted of violating the Moral Law (which is manifested in international law)—the law that all people inherently understand. If there was no such international morality that transcended the laws of the secular German government, then the Allies would have had no grounds to condemn the Nazis….without God to provide an objective standard of right and wrong, people set the rules. And if people set the rules, there is no objective moral standard by which to evaluate Hitler’s actions against those of, say, Mother Teresa. (17)

To those who say that everything is relative and that there are no moral absolutes, Geisler counters, “You can’t make everything relative unless you’re standing on the pinnacle of your own absolute.” (18)

If God is removed from any system in which all moral values derive from Him, then His removal inevitably must result in anarchy (Romans 1:18–32). Even Jewish death-of-God theologian Richard Rubenstein is forced to grant this point: “Murdering God…is an assertion of the will to total moral and religious license.”(19)

Historian Paul Johnson points out that the relativistic morality of the Nazis grew out of the existential philosophical notion of obeying the “iron laws” that were created by the state (20) instead of the absolute moral laws that were taught in the churches: “Hitler…appealed to the moralistic nature of many Germans…[who desired to live ‘morally’ but did not possess any] code of moral absolutes rooted in Christian faith.…Marx and Lenin translated [this philosophy] into a class concept; Hitler into a race one. Just as the Soviet cadres were taught to justify the most revolting crimes in the name of a moralistic class warfare, so [were] the [German] SS…in the name of race.”(20)

Johnson also observes, in a frontal way, that if we cut “the umbilical cord [from] God, our source of ethical vitality would be gone.…we humans are all Jekyll and Hyde creatures, and the monster within each of us is always striving to take over.”(21) In other words, morality without God is Macbeth’s “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”!

In states of relativism, it does not matter who the moral ethicist is or what his or her particular view is. (22) All of these systems leave one in the moral abyss determined by those in power at the time. Whether it is Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and his relative utilitarianism (i.e., one should act so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number in the end), or Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991) and his relative situationism (i.e., everything is relative to the situation and the only thing required in any moment is love), or any other approach leaving the divine perspective out of the formula, we are left in the hands of those who have enough power to determine for us what is the moral truth at any given moment.

Because of their rejection of God, Hitler and the Nazis, as well as most of the rest of Germany’s population, certainly were convinced that their solution to “the Jewish question” was the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run (i.e., Bentham) and that they were carrying out the most loving acts of ethnic cleansing in that particular situation (i.e., Joseph Fletcher).

Answer

GoodWithout_God asks: “So all of the 5 million+ Jews and Christians (polish political prisoners for example) that were killed during the holocaust, their prayers were ignored because they weren't faithful enough?”

Prayer not motivated by love is “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1, 2). In The Passion for Souls , John Henry Jowett said, “The gospel of a broken heart demands the ministry of bleeding hearts.” Again, “As soon as we cease to bleed we cease to bless. When our sympathy loses its pang we can no longer be the servants of the passion.” Without love, prayer is empty; without prayer, love is unfulfilled. (23)

Does God Answer Prayer?

For sound reasons in accord with His holy, loving, and wise purposes God cannot grant every request as asked. Several hindrances to answered prayer are mentioned in Scripture: iniquity in the heart ( Ps 66:18 ), refusal to hear God’s law ( Prov 28:9 ), an estranged heart ( Isa 29:13 ), sinful separation from God ( Isa 59:2 ), waywardness ( Jer 14:10-12 ), offering unworthy sacrifices ( Mal 1:7-9 ), praying to be seen of men ( Matt 6:5 , 6 ), pride in fasting and tithing ( Luke 18:11-14 ), lack of faith ( Heb 11:6 ), doubting, or double-mindedness ( James 1:6 , 7 ), asking wrongly to spend it on selfish passions ( James 4:3 ), and inconsideration of husband or wife ( 1 Pet 3:7 ). (23)

Affirmatively, God has promised to answer requests when His children, having ceased speaking wickedness and accusing others start pouring themselves out for the hungry and afflicted ( Isa 58:9 , 10 ) and believe that they will receive what they ask ( Mark 11:22-24 ), forgive others ( Mark 11:25 , 26 ), ask in Christ’s name ( John 14:13 , 14 ), abide in Christ and His words ( John 15:7 ), pray in the Spirit ( Eph 6:18 ), obey the Lord’s commandments ( 1 John 3:22 ) and ask according to His will ( 5:14 , 15 ). Until a believer has properly responded to God he cannot properly make request of God. (23)

Although to their own knowledge some have met the conditions of answered prayer they ought never seek to compel God to act in a certain way. Surely Jesus met every condition of answered prayer, but in Gethsemane He concluded, “not as I will, but as thou wilt” ( Matt 26:36-44 ). If any Christian was qualified to pray expecting his request to be answered, it was Paul. But God did not remove his “thorn in the flesh.” Paul’s greatest desire was answered, although his request was not. He was given the grace to live with his “thorn...in the flesh” and minister effectively ( 2 Cor 12:7-9 ). When the unworthy Israelites insisted upon their way, finally God gave what they asked, but also “sent a wasting disease among them” ( Ps 106:15 ). Prayer ought never to be turned into magical compulsion, but must always remain request to a wiser, personal God. (23)

No, not all of the approximately six million Jews, Christians, (polish political prisoners, etc.) killed during the holocaust who prayed to God prayers were ignored. Only those who didn’t have faith in God had their prayers ignored. Those who had trust (even the slightest bit of trust) in God had their prayers answered by God. The answers to our prayers are not always what we want the answer to be especially if our prayer is against the will of God. For those who prayed to God, in God’s will to be done, their prayer was answered. For example; Wiesel stated in an interview; “My ambition really was, even as a child, to be a writer, a commentator, and a teacher…” to which he is and has been. God answered Wiesel’s prayer.

Thank you for the questions GoodWithout_God, God bless you.

Resources

1. www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/godontrial/index.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_(book)
6. Elie Wiesel, Night, trans. Stella Rodway (New York: Avon Books, 1960), 44, 74–76.
7. Elie Wiesel, quoted in Emil Fackenheim, Richard H. Popkin, George Steiner, and Elie Wiesel, “Jewish Values in the Post-Holocaust Future: A Symposium,” Judaism 16 (Summer 1967): 298–99.
8. Elie Wiesel, “Talking and Writing and Keeping Silent,” in The German Church Struggle and the Holocaust, ed. Franklin H. Littell and Hubert G. Locke (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1974), 277.
9. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan. Fifty Key Jewish Thinkers. New York: Routledge, 1997, 128.
10. Elie Wiesel, quoted in Alice L. Eckardt, “Rebel against God,” Face to Face 6 (Spring 1979): 18.
11. Moral philosophers explain that every evil power in history has employed two sets of tactics to perpetuate the moral wrongs that they have instigated. In Nazi Germany, there was one to condition the soldiers that the Jews really deserved to be exterminated (to force them to view the Jews as evil and as vermin), and another to condition the non-Jewish population that the Jews required deportation (to force them to suppress all questions about the fate of the Jews). See J. Budziszewski, Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 156; and What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2003), 192–97.
12. For the use of these conventions in the post-World War II tribunals and “The Crystallization of the Principles of International Criminal Law,” see Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972 ed., s.v. “War Crimes Trials.” See also Gideon Hausner, Justice in Jerusalem (New York: Holocaust Library, 1966); Adalbert Rückerl, The Investigation of Nazi Crimes, 1945–1978: A Documentation, trans. Derek Rutter (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1980); and Bradley F. Smith, Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg (New York: New American Library, 1977).
13. For background on these conventions, see Percy Bordwell, The Law of War between Belligerents: A History and Commentary (Chicago: Callaghan and Co., 1908).
14. Robert G. Clouse, ed., War: Four Christian Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 23. See also Bordwell, 28–49.
15. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 17–39 (this section originally published as The Case for Christianity in 1942); C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: HarperCollins, 2001, originally published in 1944); and J. Budziszewski, Written on the Heart.
16. Carey Kinsolving, “For Christian Apologist, God Speaks in the Voice of Reason,” The Washington Post, July 3, 1993, Metro Section, B7. See also Norman L. Geisler, The Roots of Evil (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1978).
17. Geisler and Turek, Legislating Morality, 20, 63–64. See also Geisler and Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 176.
18. Carey Kinsolving, “For Christian Apologist, God Speaks in the Voice of Reason,” The Washington Post, July 3, 1993, Metro Section, B7.
19. Richard L. Rubenstein, After Auschwitz: Radical Theology and Contemporary Judaism (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1966), 151–53.
20. Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), 296.
21. Paul Johnson, The Quotable Paul Johnson: A Compilation of His Wit, Wisdom and Satire, ed. George J. Marlin, Richard P. Rabatin, and Heather Richardson Higgins (New York: The Noonday Press, 1994), 20.
22. For an overview of approaches to ethics, see Norman L. Geisler, Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981).
23. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible
24. www.equip.org/articles/holocaust-apologetics - this article greatly inspired and contributed much of the information found in this answer.

Elie Wiesel Interview

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/wie0int-1

Why do Atheists Insult Christians?

Why do Atheists Insult Christians?

Atheists insult Christians because atheists are insecure and being insecure atheists want to feel better about themselves and thus atheists insult those people who do not accept their belief that God does not exist because deep inside they know God really does exist. Their knowing God exists and yet denying God’s existence causes a guilty feeling inside the atheist and thus to feel better about themselves, many atheists turn to verbal abuse.

Verbal abuse is a bullying tactic. Verbal abuse is best described as an ongoing emotional environment organized by the abuser (atheists in this case) for the purposes of control. The control atheists want when talking with Christians is emotional control over the Christian. Turning to bullying and insults, the atheist tries to take the conversation away from facts and make it an emotional display for them and their atheist friends can feel better about themselves. With verbal abuse consisting of insults and slurs against Christ Jesus and the follower of Christ Jesus, the atheist sets the stage for building their self-esteem. The underlying factor in the dynamic of verbal abuse is the abuser’s [the atheist’s] low regard for him or herself. The (atheist verbal) abuser attempts to place their victim [the Christian] in a position to believe similar things about him or herself, a form of warped projection. (1)

Atheists continue to bully and insult me (and others who follow Christ Jesus) because atheists feel the imbalance of power of their atheist’s beliefs as opposed to Christian beliefs because deep down inside each atheist, know that they are suppressing the knowledge within each of us that God exists. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,... being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:20-32)

Denial of Truth

No matter how much atheists deny that they are insecure with their atheist beliefs, atheists bully and insult Christians because they are insecure with their atheist beliefs. Some atheists go so far as to mask their face and disguise their voice in their videos because they are so insecure of their atheist beliefs yet they still bully and insult Christians in their videos because of the insecurity they have about their atheist beliefs so that they can feel better about themselves. Further studies have shown that envy and resentment may be motives for bullying. Research on the self-esteem of bullies has produced equivocal results. While some bullies are arrogant and narcissistic, others can use bullying as a tool to conceal shame or anxiety or to boost self-esteem: by demeaning others, the abuser him/herself feels empowered. (2) Most atheists who do the bullying and insulting of Christians are both, arrogant and narcissistic as they use bullying as a tool to conceal their anxiety over their atheistic beliefs... or as some atheists put it, their lack of beliefs.

Atheists know that bullying is a form of abuse yet they deny that they use bullying tactics just as they deny God exists. An atheist may say, “I insult you because I find you annoying and uninteresting, and morally bankrupt. I am not bullying you, I am insulting you.” OR “I insult you because I consider you worthy of great insult and find your messages very annoying.” OR “Still, whatever makes you feel special I guess.” Other bullying tactics atheists deploy is when they make statements like these in their trying to change the discussion from facts to an emotional display; “Well for one thing you are deflecting by changing the subject.” OR “I think you fail to grasp the…” OR “God revealed himself to you? How? Hearing voices in your head? You should probably see a psychiatrist.” OR “It is sad, you are clearly a very dishonest man.” OR “Wow you are clearly mentally ill!” OR “You are profoundly dishonest.” OR “You are a sick and dishonest man.” OR “Please stop lying.” OR “You simply refuse to answer a single question.” OR “You are a liar.” OR “You've never had an answer for anything, just BS claims, lies and fairy tales.” Each of these bullying tactics I have had addressed explicitly at me by atheists along with many much more insulting and profane than these examples.  It is odd how many times different atheists use almost the exact wording/jargon in their insults and their denying of their insults. It is as if they get together on it so to be as one voice yet I’m sure that atheists will deny that they do; yet if one does some research, one will see the truth about just how much atheists come together as one voice such as does a cult.

Imbalance of Power

Atheists know bullying involves repeated acts over time attempting to create or enforce one person's (or group's) power over another person (or group), thus an "imbalance of power". The "imbalance of power" may be social power and/or physical power. Bullying is an act of repeated aggressive behavior in order to intentionally hurt another person, physically or mentally. Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person. Bullying behavior may include name calling, verbal or written abuse. Research indicates that adults who bully have personalities that are authoritarian, combined with a strong need to control or dominate. (2) Atheists who turn to bullying and insults in conversations with Christians want to control and dominate the conversation away from facts and into emotional displays. Atheists who turn to bulling and insults are not seeking truth, they are using bullying as a tool to conceal their shame and anxiety and to boost their self-esteem: thinking that by demeaning Christians their atheist friends will come and bully and insult the Christian too thus the atheist abuser feels him/herself more empowered and in control… especially when other atheists jump in and bully and insult the Christian too.

No Moral Absolutes

Atheists knowing that there is no absolute moral basis for atheists to stand. Based on their belief in Darwin Evolution, atheists believe that they are merely stating a chemical reaction randomly occurring in their brain when atheists state their opinion; thus, an atheist’s opinion is purely meaningless especially when it comes to moral judgments. The evolutionist [atheist] has no basis for moral judgments. If man is just the result of millions of years of evolution, our behavior is based on random chemical reactions. There is no ultimate moral code. All morality is relative. So if a person needs money, why is it wrong to rob someone? According to evolution, the stronger person should succeed. Might makes right. So, in the evolutionary view, such violence is a natural, and necessary, part of the world. Why would someone place their life at risk for someone else if all morality is relative? According to evolution, the life at risk needs culled so that it doesn’t continue to procreate. (3)

Moral Absolutes

Those who have a worldview based on the Bible have a consistent basis for acts of kindness, charity, or caring. We are commanded in Scripture to love our neighbors as ourselves, to perform acts of mercy, and to care for the widows and orphans. If we take evolution to its logical conclusion, we will conclude that these widows and orphans should die because they are a drain on the resources of nature. (3) Thus the imbalance of power of atheist’s beliefs as opposed to Christian beliefs; atheists have relative subjective opinions over time changing and Christians have a solid unchanging foundation of morals set by God.

If you don’t start moral sets on God then where do they come from? They would come from men. But no two people believe the same thing. So who would be right—the rapist, the murderer, the thief, or one who doesn’t do all these things? They are all right in their own eyes. Without God, there is no way you could ever tell someone they are right or wrong. Ultimately, in the system of beliefs by man, there is no right or wrong, it’s just opinions. Only God can determine right and wrong as He created us and only He knows what is best. (3)

Atheists rejecting God sets forth the imbalance of power atheists recognize between themselves and Christians. In doing so, many atheists turn to bullying and verbal abuse to compensate for their feelings of insecurity and use insults as a tool to conceal their shame and anxiety to boost their self-esteem. Atheists who continue to bully and insult Christians do so because the atheists are trying to suppress the truth of God even further down and out of their conscience. The more atheists suppress the truth, the more vile and enraged atheists become. The more vile and enraged atheists become, the more atheists damage their physical body due to the stress they implore upon themselves and risk their eternal life to damnation. The longer duration an atheist continues to deny God, use bullying tactics, and insult Christ Jesus and those people who follow Christ Jesus, the more likely that these atheists will become even more insecure with their atheist beliefs because the longer the atheist pushes himself/herself away from God, the farther away the atheist is from loving not only God, but the people around them because God is love and without God, there is no love because all love comes from God. (1 John 4:7) The longer an atheist continues being an atheist, the less love for others the atheist displays who do not hold the same insecure atheists beliefs.

Good News

I suggest that atheists seek help in order to address their low regard for themselves. In fact, I suggest that atheists drop to their knees and repent of their sins to Christ Jesus and ask forgiveness to which Christ Jesus will forgive them if they are indeed repentant of their sins and then they should accept Christ Jesus as their savior. Even though these atheists have insulted Christ Jesus, He loves them and wants them to accept His love for them and He wants them to choose to love Him (Romans 5:8). Christ Jesus does not force His love on anyone as His mercy comes as a gift which each of us must accept.

As I stated, atheists denying the true reason why atheists insult Christians is the reason for atheists insulting Christians. The true reason atheists insult Christians is that atheists deny Christ Jesus as their savior. Atheists are insulting Christ Jesus more than atheists are insulting Christians thus is why atheists do their insults and bullying; atheists have deluded themselves by pushing down their knowledge of God. Atheists can overcome their insecurity by confessing that they are not perfect and accepting Christ Jesus as their savior.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
3. From Where do Morals Come?

 

From Where do Morals Come?

@Nickdrumr2  asks; “Given a choice of life or death, which do you choose? At the expense of an innocent child; I'd choose death. How about you and your God given morals?”

Context of the Conversation

Nickdrumr2 and I were tweeting about morals and I asked him, “Given a choice of life or death, which do you choose?” and I said that, “I choose life.” To which Nickdrumer2 replied, “Given a choice of life or death, which do you choose? At the expense of an innocent child; I'd choose death. How about you and your God given morals?”

Now I could take what Nickdrumr2 said out of context as the way he stated it could be interpreted to say that he’s choose death of an innocent child to save his life however I do not think this is what Nickdrumr2 is stating. Giving Nicdrumr2 the benefit of doubt, I am assuming that he is saying that he’d give his life up for an innocent child. This is what I would expect of someone who has not fully suppressed the God given knowledge of right from wrong and the knowledge of what is good as opposed to what is evil.

Nickdrumer2 however seems to make the opposite assumption about my statement of my choosing life over death. Nikdrumer2 seems to imply that I would choose “my live” over that of an “innocent child’s life” in his reply of; “Given a choice of life or death, which do you choose? At the expense of an innocent child; I'd choose death. How about you and your God given morals?”

From Where do Morals Come?

From a debate between two evolutionists: Lanier is a computer scientist; Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent atheist.

Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

If man is just some sort of animal who evolved, and if there’s no absolute authority, then morals is whatever you want to define it to be—if you can get away with it in the culture you live in. Is it a comfort to imagine one lives in a world with no clearly defined morals equated to everyone which do not and have not ever changed over time; no afterlife or resurrection; no inherent right, wrong, or truth; no meaning whatsoever as Richard Dawkins implies? Does it confer much enjoyment for one to believe that death is the one inevitable fact of life, that everyone’s worldly pleasures will be forgotten? Removing the fear of God and replacing it with a “do what you want” attitude only sounds good before one thinks about it (again, in contravention with what Dawkins believes about thinking and religion).

The evolutionist has no basis for moral judgments. If man is just the result of millions of years of evolution, our behavior is based on random chemical reactions. There is no ultimate moral code. All morality is relative. So if a person needs money, why is it wrong to rob someone? According to evolution, the stronger person should succeed. Might makes right. So, in the evolutionary view, such violence is a natural, and necessary, part of the world. Why would someone place their life at risk for someone else if all morality is relative? According to evolution, the life at risk needs culled so that it doesn’t continue to procreate.

The idea of loving one's neighbor as oneself – or do unto others as you would have them do unto you – self-sacrifice – is sacred. More accurately, it is Christian.  The basis for morality comes from the Bible. Such morals as ‘do not murder,’ ‘do not steal,’ ‘do not commit adultery,’ come from the Bible, which teaches an absolute authority based on the existence of God. Christ Jesus sacrificed His life for us so that through His resurrection we can live with Him in Heaven.

Those who have a worldview based on the Bible have a consistent basis for acts of kindness, charity, or caring. We are commanded in Scripture to love our neighbors as ourselves, to perform acts of mercy, and to care for the widows and orphans. If we take evolution to its logical conclusion, we will conclude that these widows and orphans should die because they are a drain on the resources of nature.

If you don’t start moral sets on God then where do they come from? They would come from men. But no two people believe the same thing. So who would be right—the rapist, the murderer, the thief, or one who doesn’t do all these things? They are all right in their own eyes. Without God, there is no way you could ever tell someone they are right or wrong. Ultimately, in the system of beliefs by man, there is no right or wrong, it’s just opinions. Only God can determine right and wrong as He created us and only He knows what is best.

Life or Death, Which do You Choose?

Nickdrumr2, I’m sure you would indeed give your physical life up to save a child and maybe even an adult because I can tell that you have not fully suppressed the God given knowledge of right from wrong and the knowledge of what is good as opposed to what is evil. What you are exhibiting is your rebellion against God’s ultimate authority and ownership over us all and as such you are at this time like you tweeted to me, choosing an eternal death over eternal life.

Each of us make a choice of repenting of our sin and accepting Christ Jesus as our savior or not. Accepting, Heaven, not Hell. You will exist for an eternity and the choice you make now decides where you exist in eternity; w/God (Heaven) or w/o God (Hell). Your family will exist for an eternity and the choice they make now decides where they exist in eternity; w/God (Heaven) or w/o God (Hell). Choosing not to repent and accept Christ Jesus as your savior is to choose eternal death. Choosing to repent and accepting Christ Jesus as your savior is to choose eternal life.

My choice of life means that I am dead to the world in that I have placed my trust into Christ Jesus. If the world requires me to physically die to save anyone from dying so be it if it is for a child, older person, younger person, or even the people who murdered my dad; especially if the person my physical death has yet to accept Christ Jesus as his or her savior. As I stated earlier, Christ Jesus sacrificed His life for us so that through His resurrection we can live with Him in Heaven. Christ Jesus set the ultimate example of giving of one’s self to save others.

Answer

To answer the question Nickdrumer2 ask me; given a choice of life or death, which do you choose with my God given morals? Like I stated in my Tweet to you Nickdrumer2, I choose life just like you chose with your God given morals. You and I would both give up our physical life to save a child and I’d even give my physical live up to save you Nickdrumer2.

Thank you Nickdrumr2 for the question; God bless you and your family!

 

Resources

www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/you-cant-teach-ethics-without-referring-to-christianity-20100409-rxai.html

www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/can-science-rep/

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-does-creation-include-suffering

Does God Order People to Randomly Kill People?

@Nickdrumr2 from Twitter asks: “You say god doesn't order people to kill. But you also say he does. Please explain?”

Clarification

In order to answer this apparent contradiction, we must make a distinction between killing someone and committing murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of a life, while killing may be lawful or unlawful.

Self-Defense or Murder?

The Bible provides many circumstances under which the taking of a life is legally allowed by Scripture. Killing another person in an act of self-defense (Exodus 22:2) was permitted with no consequences. There are examples of God calling the people to war against other nations to punish them for their sins. When Joshua led the children of Israel into the Promised Land, God commanded the Israelites to utterly destroy the idolatrous peoples who inhabited the land (Deuteronomy 20:16–17). A list of their sins can be found in Leviticus 18, including incest, murdering children, and so on. When God called Israel to war against those in the Promised Land, then He was permitting the killing in this situation, making men His agents of justice, as in the case with capital punishment.

Confusion

Nickdrumr2, you are confusing God telling His people, the Israelites, to protect themselves from those (Amalekites, Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites) who were continually attacking them with murder and other sinful acts.

An example are the Amalekites who were continually never ceasing to attack the Israelites; murdering without regard the Israelite infants, children, women, and men while they took from the Israelites what did not belong to them. Reading 1 Samuel 15:2 in context we see why God ordered the Amalekite slaughter (or as some people say, genocide, massacre, annihilation, extinction, elimination, etc.)  1 Samuel 15:2 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.’”

Note  reading the Old Testament in context shows that it wasn't just one instance of waylaying, it was a repeated occurrences multiple times over a long timeframe that the Amalekites attacked the Israelites. God’s command to the Israelites (His chosen people) to destroy the Amalekites was just as an order today for a President to order his/her military to destroy an enemy; so to protect the innocent people.

Now you ask what about the Amalekite children? The Amalekite children were victims of their parents’ heartless attacks against the Israelites. If the Amalekite parents had not attacked the Israelites, the Amalekite children would never have been a victim of their parents attacking the Israelites. The parents of the Amalekite children were continually attacking the Israelites and seeing that the Amalekite parents were so brutally cruel and hated God and God’s chosen people, God knew it best that their children need to be with Him instead of their the Amalekite parents. There were no Human Services departments back then and the Israelites were not supposed to make the Amalekite children slaves and leaving them to fend on their own was inhuman.

An Attempt to Sanitize the Story

I am in no way trying to "attempt to sanitize the story" nor would I attempt to sanitize the story because it is a very tragic that the Amalekites were so ruthless and crass in their continually attacking the Israelites (God’s chosen people) without regard to the death of Israelite infants, children, women, men and would not stop attacking and murdering the Israelites and taking their things. In situations other than the Amalekites whom God knew would not make peace with the Israelites, God ordered the Israelites to make an offer of peace with the people prior to any attack (Deuteronomy 20:10). God in His infinite wisdom and infinite omniscience knew that the Amalekite elders would never stop attacking the Israelites even if talks of peace had occurred. To protect His people (the Israelites) who were continually being attacked by the Amalekites, God commanded the Israelites to preserve themselves by destroying the Amalekites and everything that the Amalekites stood for in their hatred of God and the Israelites.

To find out more about how the Israelites had to defend themselves from others sins (Amalekites, Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, etc.), read the Old Testament books of Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Judges, 1 Samuel, and 1 Chronicles. I suggest that you read each of them in context; meaning that each verse and chapter needs read from the start of the book to the end of the book. Reading in context helps keep one from making assumptions about what was written and thus jumping to conclusions which are misleading and false such as thinking that God randomly tells people to kill other people.

Answer

Does God Order People to Randomly Kill People? No, God does not order people to randomly kill other people in acts of murder. God is however, okay with people defending their families, friends, others, and self; including countries defending countries.

Thank you @Nickdrumr2 for your question! God bless you and your family!

TAG Refuted? By no Means.

@annihilist from Twitter made the comment; “Knowing the topic isn't the same as knowing the content.”

Annihilist and I were tweeting about what has become known as “TAG” or in full, The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. Matt Slick’s TAG is seemingly the one which gets a lot of attention by atheists claiming to have refuted it. During our tweeting, Annihilist tweeted, “Refutation of this apologist argument.” that included this link: http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2009/02/slick-transcendental-argument.html which is to “The Atheist Experience” website to an article posted by Don Baker titled, “The Slick Transcendental Argument.” Annihilist said that this article is the refutation of TAG.

After my internet access started working again, I was actually able to go to “The Atheist Experience” and read the article. I also did a search and found another website which the author of another article stated that he too had refuted TAG. This one is by someone who goes by the name, Godlessons and its title is, “Matt Slick attempts to answer my refutation of TAG” http://godlessons.com/2010/02/19/matt-slick-attempts-to-answer-my-refutation-of-tag

I’m no expert on logic or for that matter not much of an expert on anything at all. There is however a special gift that I have from God which helps me cut to the bottom of things and get to the truth. So let’s see if I can get to the truth of these TAG refutations.

Let’s go over my findings of these two self-claimed repudiations of TAG. Let’s start with the article from “The Atheist Experience” as this is the one Annihilist sent to me.

Don Baker, the author of this article wrote, “…there is no such thing as a ‘moment of conception’ as Christian propagandists would have you believe.” This is an axiom being made by the author about the conception of a baby. Prior to his making this statement about conception, he wrote, “Axioms are assumptions (made by humans) that may not be applicable in all situations.” From Wikipedia, an axiom is defined; “In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.” Here I find fault in Don Baker’s logic. In the axiom that Don Baker made about there not being a “moment of conception” he is overlooking that there had to be a beginning at some point in time during the process for he and I to have become him and me because Don and I are now not in the process of conception. From Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary, conception is defined with regard to babies as follows: 1b: the process that occurs within a woman's body when she becomes pregnant ▪ the moment of conception.

Another flaw which is even more critical I find in Don Baker’s logic within his article stems from his writing, “It is true that humans invented it [logic], but machines can carry it [logic] out.” He states proof of machines being able to carry out logic through theorem provers and points specifically to the famous ‘four color problem’ being “solved by a computer before it was solved by a human.” Here Don Baker’s logic excluded humans being the ones who designed, built, and programmed the computer to perform their calculations which solved the four color problem. If a human had not designed, built, and programmed a computer; for one, the computer would still not exist because they don’t just evolve from silicon to be a computer on their own with full programming built into them; and two, the computer would not have been able to properly execute its program which was logically thought out and carefully written by humans to perform and be theorem provers. Thus Don Baker’s logic is flawed when he asserts that minds are not necessary to apply logic when the truth is that minds are indeed necessary to apply logic. Don Baker goes from there being no computer to there being a computer to it doing complex logic operations without there having been any human component in the design and creation of and programming of the computer by humans. So the truth isn’t that as Don Baker implies that the computer evolved on its own into a machine which can perform logic calculations without human intervention. The truth is, is that humans solved the four color problem by designing and creating a computer which could perform logic calculations faster than a human and through programming by human developers coding into the computer the logic needed for a computer to properly solve the four color problem and other theorem provers calculations.

Now let’s go to the article I found by Godlessons, “Matt Slick attempts to answer my refutation of TAG” and see if this author made any critical logic errors as Don Baker did in his article.

The author of this article seemingly has no understanding of absolutes. I say this because his (could be a she but I’m keeping it in the masculine) critical error in logic stems from his lack of understanding that the “actual” color of one’s shoes is the “actual” color of one’s shoes; not the perceived color by someone of one’s shoes’ color. This author goes on for a length of time not understanding that absolutely the shoes have a color which is actually the color of the shoes. This author goes through a rather long series of perceptions of what the color of one’s shoes could be per different people looking at them. This author also applies logical absolutes to arbitrary preferences of someone’s food to eat by saying that some people may prefer stake over broccoli. This author then concludes that the law of non-contradiction could possibly be violated but that because we only perceive what color the shoes are and prefer one food over another food thus we’d not know if the law of non-contradiction were violated or not.

The law of non-contradiction states that a contradiction cannot be true: “It is impossible to have A and not A at the same time and in the same relationship.” The last part of this definition is crucially important. Obviously, A and not A could each be true at different times but never at the same time. Now getting back to the color of shoes that this author speaks of; with the “actual” color of the shoes, the shoes cannot be both, the “actual” color and “not the actual” color at the same time regardless of what the perceived color of the shoes are by the people who view them. It doesn’t matter if the people who perceive the color of the shoes differently or not, the “actual” color of the shoes will always be the “actual” color of the shoes over the lifetime of the shoes because the color of the shoes can be nothing but the “actual” color of the shoes for as long as they are shoes even if over time their color changes it is still the “actual” color of the shoes. As for food preferences, it is absolutely necessary for each of us (you and me) to have substantial digestion of nutrition so to survive regardless of what our preferences are for food. It doesn’t matter what a person’s food preference is or not so long as a person is digesting the absolute needed nutritional requirements to not starve. With regard to the law of non-contradiction it would be a person is either “digesting the absolute needed nutritional requirements to not starve” or a person is “not digesting the absolute needed nutritional requirements to not starve.” This is because a person absolutely cannot be doing both, “digesting  the absolute needed nutritional requirements to not starve” and “not digesting  the absolute needed nutritional requirements to not starve” at the same time regardless of any food preferences the person has. So the truth isn’t as Godlessons states that we cannot know if the law of non-contradiction is violated or not if one properly uses its logic. The truth is, not understanding absolutes over preferences when applying logic as Godlessons did can lead people into false conclusions due to one to improperly applied logic.

TAG Refuted? By no Means did these Authors Refute TAG.

This reminds me of a quote from Abe Lincoln about a calf. A calf is a baby cow for those who may not know what a calf is. For simplistic sake and for those who are not familiar with what a calf looks like, I’ll change in my rendition of Abe Lincoln’s story the calf to a dog because most people know what a dog looks like. Abe Lincoln once asked someone, “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs would the dog have?” If you do simple math, a dog has four legs plus one would be five, right? “Wrong,” as Abe Lincoln points out, “Only four legs does a dog have even when you call its tail a leg because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make a tail a leg.”

Annihilist tweeted to me, “Knowing the topic isn't the same as knowing the content.” and I couldn’t agree with him more. The truth of these two TAG refutations is that their authors each make critical errors in their logic trying to refute TAG. Now if either of these two authors trying to refute TAG willingly ignored their logic mistakes or if they even realized that they made mistakes in their logic I do not know. Only God and these two authors know if they willingly ignored their mistakes or if they didn’t realize that they made blunders in their logic of trying to refute TAG. What I do know is that both authors who tried to refute TAG made critical errors which render moot any refutation of TAG that they claim they’ve made.

I find it pathetic that there are so many people who present themselves as knowing the content when they don’t even really know the topic. Seriously, as I stated, I’m not an expert in logic but these easily found serious flaws of logical made by these two atheist authors who claim that they have refuted TAG shows just how much people can overlook or willingly persuade when they are trying to be right instead of seeking truth. What’s even worse are those people who will read these author’s works and take it at face value without doubt for what they say as truth not thinking on their own about the logic within the articles; and thus wrongly thinking that they refuted TAG when truth is that these authors made serious logic errors in their reasoning and do not refute TAG at all.

Annihilist, thank you for our Twitter discussions; I find them enlightening and hope you do too. God bless you!

 

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/conception

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/lincoln-quote-sourced-calfs-tail-not-dogs-tail/

Do Babies and the Mentally ill Sin thus go to Hell?

justbekindtooall from YouTube asks; “Tell me how babies and people with mental disabilities, sin? What about animals, do they sin?

Answer: First, let’s define what “sin” is. From the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary, the following are definitions of the word, sin:

sin

1a : an offense against religious or moral law

  b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible

  c : an often serious shortcoming : fault

2a : transgression of the law of God

  b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

You and I sin when we are not following God’s commandments for us to follow. God gave us the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17) to follow and adhere to so that we know what God considers good and what He considers evil. In God’s telling us to follow the Ten Commandments we know what God considers right for us and what He considers wrong for us. In Mark 12:28-34, Jesus actually breaks it down into the two greatest commandments that we should follow; love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor (everyone around you) as yourself. Just two commandments for us to follow and we (you and I) can’t even do that.

It is in your, my, everyone’s nature (including babies’) to “sin” because Adam and Eve partook from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil against God’s command for them to not eat from it. From that point on, because Adam and Eve are our oldest set of ancestors (btw; the Human Genome Project confirms that we are all from a set of common ancestors which the Bible has always said was so), we (everyone, you, and me, including babies) have sin in our nature. Animals do not sin because they were not created in the image of God as you and I were and were not given as we were the ability to reason with knowledge of right and wrong.

When Adam was told by God to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam knew at that point, right and wrong. Adam knew wrong was eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because God told him to not eat from it. Adam knew it was right to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because God told him to not eat from it. Once Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam knew the difference between good (God) and evil (Satan). In other words after Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam knew it was good to follow God’s commandments and that it was evil to follow Satan’s temptations. You and I know what is right and what is wrong. We don’t just always do what is right because what is wrong is just too tempting for us to do because we think we will get some pleasure out of it.

Babies do not per se "sin" yet they are capable of sinning. Have you ever heard of having to teach a child to be selfish? Think about it, most children at the age of two (some sooner others later) have to be taught to “share” their toys with other children… and it’s not always an easy task to teach and some children never learn it. These children who don’t learn sharing grow up to be very selfish adults. At some point in a child’s life ‘adolescence’ (as it happened with you and me), the child acknowledges right from wrong. Not that we always do (or even at times admit) what is right when we should do what is right, yet, we know what is right and what is wrong. At after that point, the child not doing what is right when he/she should have done it or is doing something that is wrong when he/she knows it is wrong, and knowing the consequences of the offence, the child is sinning. You know, our conscience; that little voice God put inside each of your and my head that we don’t always listen to which tells us what is right and what is wrong, what we should have done when we didn’t and what we should do but don’t always do.

In Luke 18:16-17 Jesus tells us that Heaven belongs to children (including babies). “But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.” (Luke 18:16-17) From this, we know that children are considered innocent by Jesus and when children die they go to Heaven. This would be inclusive of the Amalekites’ children as it includes ALL children because God loves everyone equally and did not make any exceptions.

Because of our “sin” we have diseases and disabilities of varying degrees within the body and mind. Throughout the years, people like you, me, and everyone before us who have not heeded God’s commandments have brought many ailments and disorders and incapacities into our families, friends, and into our own bodies. God made Adam and Eve to not ever die. God told Adam that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would cause him to surely die. After Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God told Adam that because he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that he’d have to work hard and then at some point in time, turn back to the dust from which God created him; in other words, Adam would die. (See Genesis 3:1-24 for more details.)

Mental illness is a result of sin. People with mental disabilities have sin in their nature however God knows of their mental shortcomings and He knows if their mental shortcoming has interfered with their ability to know right and wrong, good and evil; God knows their heart, their true internal nature. God loves everyone including those with mental illness. In Psalms 41:13, we are told just how God loves those who are ill. “The LORD will help them when they are sick and will restore them to health.” (Psalms 41:13). This does not mean that God will always restore everyone with mental illness to health here on earth, but assuredly, God does restore those with real mental health issues to perfect health when He brings them home to Heaven to be with Him.

So babies, children, and the real mentally ill don’t per se “sin” even though everyone’s nature (yours and mine) is to sin against God’s two greatest commandments; love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor (everyone around you) as yourself.

Thank you justbekindtooall for your questions. May God bless you!

 

Resources

“Life Application Study Bible” New International Version (NIV), Zondervan

www.biblemaster.com

 

Why did God order Slaughter of all the Amalekites?

FlyingFree333 from Twitter asked; “Why did God order the Slaughter of all Amalekites men and women, children and infants, etc. as described in the Old Testament book of 1 Samuel 15:3?

Answer: Well, this question I’ve been asked a number of times in Twitter and the answer is in the Old Testament book of 1 Samuel 15:1-50. If read in context, 1 Samuel 15:1-50 clearly states in verse two why God ordered total destruction of all that belonged to the Amalekites. Verse two also states why God ordered the death of Amalekite men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. Verse two even makes it clear why God requested that that none of the Amalekites be spared. So let’s read 1 Samuel 15:2 in context and see why God ordered the slaughter (or as some people say, genocide, massacre, annihilation, extinction, elimination, etc.)  1 Samuel 15:2 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.’”

Wow, FlyingFree333 if you had read the verse just prior to the one you asked about, you would have read the reason why God ordered the annihilation of the Amalekites. God ordered the extermination of the Amalekites and the total destruction of Amalekite material belongings because the Amalekites repeatedly attacked the Israelites (God’s chosen people) as the Israelites came up from Egypt to enter into their Promised Land.

The Amalekites were a band of what we would call today, guerrilla terrorists. The way the Amalekites lived was by attacking other nations and carrying off their wealth and their families. The Amalekites were also very into idolatrous religious practices which went against the Ten Commandments God gave to Moses. Without being totally annihilated, the Amalekites would have continued to attack God’s chosen people and would have corrupted the Israelites relationship with God.

To find out more about the Amalekites read the Old Testament books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Judges, 1 Samuel, and 1 Chronicles. I suggest that you read each of them in context; meaning that each verse needs read from the start of the book to the end of the book. Reading in context helps keep one from making assumptions about what was written and thus jumping to conclusions which are misleading and false.

PS: Unlike you FlyingFree333 on YouTube who are ashamed of your atheist faith hence you disguise your voice and distort your face, I am not ashamed of my faith in Christ Jesus. I proudly proclaim with my voice (as unpleasant as it may be) and face (as ugly as it is) my love for Christ Jesus. My prayer for you FlyingFree333 is that one day too you will choose to open your eyes and be proud of your faith in Christ Jesus and thus be able to fly freely and let your voice be heard for who you are and show your face for whom you stand in faith.

Thank you for your question FlyingFree333 for your question. May God bless you!

Resources

“Life Application Study Bible” New International Version (NIV), Zondervan

www.biblemaster.com

Why doesn't God not abdicate His Godhood?

UncleWaddyHead from YouTube asks a number of questions about God;

1. “Why doesn't God not abdicate His godhood immediately?”
2. Why would God, if he felt a need to create, and is omnipotent, AND opposed to tyranny, not create a race of equals, thereby negating his godhood and superior status once and for all?
3. What is He [God] afraid of?

Let’s answer UncleWaddyHead’s 3^rd question first; “What is He [God] afraid of?”

Answer: Nowhere in the Bible does it say God is afraid of anything. God is not afraid of anything.

Next we’ll answer UncleWaddyHead’s 1^st part of the 2^nd question next.

Seeing that it is broken into two parts, we’ll answer the first part of UncleWaddyHead’s 2^nd question; “Why would God, if he felt a need to create, and is omnipotent, AND opposed to tyranny, not create a race of equals?”

Answer: God did create a race of equals; God created you and me in His image as equals. The human race (the one which every man and woman belongs) was created in God’s image as equals.

We are all equal in the eyes of God and were each given a purpose by God:

God told us that everything (including you and me) was made for a purpose. [Proverbs 16:4]

God created us for His pleasure. [Revelation 4:11]

God’s unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into His own family by bringing us to Himself through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. [Ephesians 1:5]

We are to choose to become more and more like Christ Jesus and reflect His glory. [2 Corinthians 3:18]

God invites us to participate in the greatest, largest, most diverse, and most significant cause in history – his kingdom by sharing His love with everyone.  [1 Peter 3:15]

We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. [Romans 8:28]

God tells us to test ourselves and to examine our faith to see if it is placed into the correct things. [2 Corinthians 13:5]

God told us to study and gain knowledge and to not be ignorant of fact and to refuse foolish and ignorant speculations. [Proverbs 4:5, 7; 16:16: 2 Timothy 2:23]

1 Thessalonians 4:7 tells us that God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification.

1 Timothy 4:7 - God tells us to have nothing to do with worldly myths and fables and to discipline ourselves for the purpose of godliness.

1 Peter 2:21 – God informs us that our purpose is to use Christ Jesus as an example and to follow in Christ Jesus teachings.

Jesus tells us in John 15:9-17 and Luke 10:25-37 that our purpose is to love God with all our heart and to also love one another.

We are informed by Jesus that we are to share life with each other and with Him. [Matthew 18:20]

Now, we’ll answer the whole of UncleWaddyHead’s 2^nd question.

The whole 2^nd question together; “Why would God, if he felt a need to create, and is omnipotent, AND opposed to tyranny, not create a race of equals, thereby negating his godhood and superior status once and for all?” >>Here I am assuming that UncleWaddyHead is wondering why God didn’t create you and me as God instead of who you and I actually are, human beings created in God’s image.<<

Answer: We need to understand the attributes of God before we can fully answer UncleWaddyHead’s second question. Here is a list of God’s attributes. (Btw, they came from the link in the resources section below which has the Bible verses which describe God in it.)

SELF-EXISTENT: God has no cause; He does not depend on anything for his continued existence.

TRANSCENDENT: God is entirely distinct from the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench; excluding pantheism (God in all) and animism (everything is a god).

IMMANENT: Though transcendent, God is present with and in the world; excluding deism (God is out there but not here).

IMMUTABLE: God is perfect in that He never changes nor can He change with respect to His being, attributes, purpose, or promises; excluding process theology, Mormon doctrine of eternal progression.

ETERNAL: God is perfect in that He transcends all time and temporal limitations, and is thus infinite with respect to time.

OMNIPRESENT: God is perfect in that He transcends all space and spatial limitations, and is thus infinite with respect to space, with His whole Being filling every part of the universe and being present everywhere (not diffused through the universe, but present at each point in His fullness).

OMNIPOTENT: God is perfect in that He can do all things consistent with the perfection of His being.  God cannot do the self-contradictory (e.g., make a rock He cannot lift), nor can He do that which is contrary to His perfect nature (e.g., He cannot change, He cannot lie, etc.).

OMNISCIENT: God is perfect in that He knows all things, including events before they happen.

INCORPOREAL: God has no body or parts, and is immaterial, being a simple and infinite being of spirit; excluding the Mormon doctrine of God as an exalted man.

ONE: God is a perfectly unique and simple being, existing as one infinite Being called God.  There is therefore only one God, who is called Yahweh in the Old Testament, and who reveals Himself in the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the New Testament; thus excluding polytheism, tritheism (belief in three gods), and subordinationism (in which Christ is a lesser god subordinate to the Almighty God).

CREATOR: God is the One through whom all things have come into existence; by His unbounded power and knowledge He created finite existence ex nihilo and formed the universe as it now is.

PERSONAL:  God, as the author of personhood in the created universe, cannot be less than personal Himself; thus He experiences relationships with other persons, or self-conscious beings.  Note that God may be more than personal, indeed, His infinite nature suggests that He must be.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE: God is incomprehensible, not in the sense that the concept of God is unintelligible, but in the sense that God cannot be fully and directly known by finite creatures, because of His uniqueness and His infinitude.

MORALLY PERFECT: The following are the moral attributes of God; they are listed here together because God's moral nature is perfectly unified, with no tension between His wrath and His love, for example.

a.        GOOD: God is morally excellent, and does only good

b.        HOLY: God is morally transcendent, utterly separated from all evil, and perfectly pure

c.        RIGHTEOUS: God is perfectly moral in all that He does, doing everything right

d.       TRUE: God is perfectly truthful, and cannot lie

e.        LOVING: God's moral character is pure love, sacrificial giving for the true benefit of another

f.         WRATHFUL: God's moral perfection requires Him to show displeasure against anything which seeks to act contrary to its moral purpose,
            to judge that which rebels against His authority as Creator and Lord 

To say that “God is omnipotent” means that His power is limitless, and, thus, God is capable of doing anything that is logically possible. This does not mean that God can do things that are absurd or irrational. It is absurd and irrational to think that God could create Himself because as we see from God’s attributes, God is not created.

In fact, the Bible is very clear that there are certain things God cannot do: He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). This is not because He lacks the power, but because He is true to His own nature. So, there is no contradiction in saying that God is all powerful (He can do anything that is logically possible), and yet He cannot do things that are logically impossible.

In fact, apart from the biblical God, we would have no reason to believe that contradictions are always wrong because the law of non-contradiction itself stems from the nature of God. All truth is in God (John 14:6; Colossians 2:3), and God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Thus, truth will not go against itself; it will not contradict. Apart from the biblical God, there would be no reason for the law of non-contradiction—or any law of logic.

Finally, we’ll answer UncleWaddyHead’s 1^st question. “Why doesn't God not abdicate His godhood immediately?”

Answer: God cannot abdicate His godhood. As stated in the attributes of God, He is IMMUTABLE: God is perfect in that He never changes nor can He change with respect to His being, attributes, purpose, or promises; excluding process theology, Mormon doctrine of eternal progression.

Also, if God were to be able to abdicate His godhood, nothing would exist. God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3) and if God were to be able to abdicate His godhood, all things (you, me, the universe, earth, etc.) would immediately cease to exist.

Thank you for your questions UncleWaddyHead! May God bless you! 

Resources

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-attributes-of-god

www.answersingenesis.org

http://www.biblemaster.com