By Rajkumar Richard
Examining atheism from the vantage point of Christianity motivates a Christian to ask two questions. First, “what would I gain if I convert to atheism?” Second, “is there any value to the benefits stockpiled from atheism?”
What would I gain if I convert to atheism?
Thankfully, the “Creed” penned by the English poet and music journalist Steve Turner reflects the panoramic voice of an atheist whose godless worldview mandates an embrace of relativism:
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same –
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
Postscript:
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear:
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
The benefit an atheist accrues is predicated on an assumption that atheism sets him free.
If I’m an atheist, I’d be liberated from religious demands. I no longer need to love and worship God.
If I do not love God, I’d not be shackled to a morally pure life required by Christianity. As Friedrich Nietzsche thought, if God does not exist, everything is permitted. I am my own god.
Decisions abhorrent to a well meaning Christian would be desirable to an atheist. An atheist can abort his / her unborn child. Gaining wealth by hook or by crook cannot be condemned by moral relativism. Fraud and bribery are acceptable. If anyone impedes his pursuit, he can bulldoze them, figuratively and literally. Thanks to atheism.
Pleasure in all forms is acceptable to an atheist, for atheism is sufficiently undergirded by the relativistic paradigm. An atheist is free to practice adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, child sex and what not. Thanks to the power of subjective moral values.
This is not it.
An atheist could also live a depressing life, for he would suffer a constant existential struggle.
This metaphysical struggle is between moral relativism and the law of the land, which is fundamentally predicated on objective moral values (you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you cannot rape etc.).
Although moral relativism prescriptively allows an atheist to gain wealth through unholy means, the law of the land legislates various stipulations that stifles and could imprison him for gaining wealth through unholy means. So he should painfully ponder over the wisdom behind the law of the land not being predicated on moral relativism!!
Jeffrey Dahmer, an American serial killer, expressed this struggle, “If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…” (Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.).
Is there any value to the benefits stockpiled from atheism?
Atheists who wholly experience the unholy pleasures of this material world is destined to become weary of pleasure so to doom themselves into the darkened dungeons of meaninglessness.
Edward Young, in his work “Night Thoughts” ridiculed pleasure, “Sure as night follows day, Death treads in Pleasure’s footsteps round the world, When Pleasure treads the paths which Reason shuns.” And wasn’t it G.K Chesterton who said, “Meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain. Meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure.”?
The author of Ecclesiastes pronounced the meaninglessness of pleasure, “I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good.” But that also proved to be meaningless. “Laughter,” I said, “is madness. And what does pleasure accomplish?” I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly—my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was good for people to do under the heavens during the few days of their lives.
I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards…I amassed silver and gold for myself…I acquired male and female singers, and a harem as well—the delights of a man’s heart. I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me.
I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my labor, and this was the reward for all my toil. Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 2: 1-11, NIV).
So atheism does not set anyone free instead it imprisons its devotees to meaninglessness. Atheism offers perishable benefits, not enduring benefits.
What about those atheists who have lost faith in God because of the problem of evil and suffering? If you’re one of those atheists, please read the book of Habakkuk in the Bible.
The author of Habakkuk complains to God about evil, injustice and God’s apparent inactivity. But after hearing God’s response, he wholeheartedly proclaimed, “Though the cherry trees don’t blossom and the strawberries don’t ripen, Though the apples are worm-eaten and the wheat fields stunted, Though the sheep pens are sheepless and the cattle barns empty, I’m singing joyful praise to God. I’m turning cartwheels of joy to my Savior God. Counting on God’s Rule to prevail, I take heart and gain strength. I run like a deer. I feel like I’m king of the mountain!” (Habakkuk 3: 17-19, MSG).
To conclude, yes, atheism offers a plethora of unholy benefits. But unholy benefits cannot enrich life.
There’s a God. HE desires that we love HIM. When we love God truly and wholly, we don’t gain pleasure from anything the material world has to offer. We find pleasure in enjoying God’s presence and the peace HE offers us through the good and the bad days of our lives. Because we love HIM, we long to be with HIM forever – even beyond this earthly life.
So let’s echo the words of the author of Ecclesiastes, who after having considered everything the material world has to offer, finds meaning in God alone, “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12: 13-14, NIV).
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2nxaiun
Why Is The Image of God So Important?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Luke Nix
Introduction
Those who follow this blog are aware that I not only defend “mere” Christianity, but I also defend specifics in the Christian worldview. As I have written before, I believe that if a Christian is defending an incorrect detail of their worldview to a skeptic, that skeptic can easily use that incorrect detail as an excuse to reject the entire worldview (even though this is not logically reasonable). Over the last few years of interacting with fellow Christians regarding the details of our worldview, one of the doctrines that are not discussed explicitly very often, but other debates directly affect, is the doctrine of the Image of God. I have noticed that some positions in the other debates imply different views of the Image of God, and these different views of the Image of God can be used to test the positions in the other debates. But before I get into those debates, we need to know why this Judeo-Christian doctrine is so important in the first place.
What Is At Stake?
The Image of God provides the grounding for several essential characteristics of humans that set us apart from the animal kingdom. Without appropriate grounding for these characteristics, a worldview cannot explain these characteristics, thus it is forced to deny that they even exist…with dire consequences, as we shall see. What are these characteristics, though? While the Image of God grounds several characteristics, I want to examine four of them today:
It is common today to think that a person’s value is based upon their race, sex, age, religion, intelligence, economic status, physical ability, entertainment ability, or a whole host of other “useful” things to a society. All of these, though, are relative and fleeting. Anytime that one of those are different (between persons or even in the same person at different times in their lives) their value goes up, down, or disappears. Intrinsic value is value that is not based on any of those accidental characteristics. Intrinsic value is value that is objective, found outside the societies, groups, or other individuals who are judging a person’s worth. This is an objective value that people possess simply in virtue of being human.
No human is intrinsically more or less valuable than another. This concept provides the ground for the idea of “equal rights” regardless of sex, race, age, ability, or status. If you are a human, you are intrinsically valuable, period. Since animals do not possess the Image of God, they do not possess such intrinsic value; they are valuable based upon whatever someone else needs them to accomplish. Animal value is relative and subjective, but human value is objective. If someone violates (harms) an intrinsically valuable thing, it is a moral evil. Specifically, an attack on a possessor of the Image of God is a direct attack on God Himself. If humans do not possess the Image of God, no act against us for any reason is evil. In fact, if humans do not possess the Image of God, it is permissible (if not obligatory) that humans be treated no different than any other animal (and vice versa). Just as a house fly may be killed because it is irritating us, so may a human be killed because he or she is irritating us, and if a human’s life is to be protected by the law, then so should the life of every animal be protected by the law also.
Free Will
When I say “free will” I am talking about the ability to choose to do something other than what we actually do, given the same circumstances (called “libertarian” free will). For instance, you have a choice to continue reading this post or not. Sure, some things will influence that choice, but ultimately you are choosing whether to accept those influences and act upon them or not; the circumstances (or your desires) do not determine your choice, though they do influence your choice. What allows us to do this is the fact that we are “agents” or “souls.” These (and we) are beings that exist independent of physical reality, thus we are not 100% governed by its laws (though our bodies are, which many of our decisions require us to take into account). Because an agent is not physical, it must have a non-physical source- the Image of God provides that source for humans. If humans do not possess the Image of God, then we do not possess free will and all our “choices” are determined by something else, not us.
The animals do not possess the Image of God, thus they do not possess free will. They are beholden to their environment for their behavior. Their surroundings are what determine how they act. The fact that humans have free will means that humans are capable of choosing how to act towards one another, nothing or no one else makes the choice for us, we are responsible.
Moral Responsibility
Taking the two previous characteristics provided by the Image of God, we discover that humans have moral responsibility. If humans are not intrinsically valuable, then no act committed against them is evil. If humans do not have the ability to choose to do otherwise, then they cannot be held responsible for such an evil act. Thus both intrinsic value AND free will are necessary for moral responsibility. This makes us moral beings. Something that animals are not. If an animal kills another animal, we do not call it “murder” because “murder” is “killing” plus a moral element. Animals do not possess intrinsic value (so the killing is not a violation of God’s Image) and animals are not morally responsible beings. On the other hand, man is both intrinsically valuable AND a moral being, so if a human kills another human it is a moral act based on the Image of God in both the victim and the killer. And the morality of that act must be justified by the Moral Law that God has written on the hearts of every human (via His Image) and in His further revelation of Scripture.
This means that if humans wish to hold other humans morally responsible for their actions, the Image of God is necessary on two accounts. Without the Image of God, there is no ground for moral responsibility, no ground for reward or punishment. In fact, if either intrinsic value or free will are missing from the equation, moral responsibility (and reward and punishment) cannot do not make sense; they are meaningless.
The Ability to Reason
Often times it is difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is practical because the two do not always seem to align. What is practical is derived from what allows us to survive and thrive in any given environment. We act and react, according to what stimulates our senses, with those two purposes as the end goal. This is the mode of operation of a creature that not only does not possess free will but also one that does not possess reliable reasoning faculties. If our ability to reason is grounded in a process or object that is focused on survival, then that is exactly what it will do, and the misalignments between what is practical and what is true will never be detected. We are forced to conflate truth with practicality, on this view, because as the environment changes, what is necessary for survival also changes (think of living in Saudi Arabia vs. living in the United States).
On the other hand, if our reasoning faculties are grounded in something that is essentially concerned with what is true, then that faculty can be trusted to be able to detect the difference between a belief that is merely practical for an environment and one that is true (independent of the environment). The Image of God provides this grounding in the Creator, who IS omniscient and desires that humans come to know what is true and not just what is practical for their given environment. In being made in the Image of God, humans not only possess the ability to freely choose among options, we have a reliable tool to identify which option is the correct option. Thus this makes our moral responsibility even more binding.*
The Origin and Current Status of the Image of God
Because all four of those characteristics are tied to the Image of God, it is important that in our defense of the Christian worldview, and specifics within the worldview, that we consistently hold and defend a specific view regarding its origin and status.
Testing Origins Views Via The Image of God
Regarding its origin, some people believe that the Image of God came about by natural processes- it is a functional distinction between us and the animals based upon our evolution from the lower species. This view is most commonly found in the origin position called “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creationism” (but not all of them hold this view of the Image of God; I’ll address that important distinction in a minute). This cannot be the way the Image of God appeared because it is merely a difference in degree of development between animal and human rather than a difference in ontological essence (“kind”). A difference in degree is not an ontological difference, but the Image of God, in order to be an ontological ground for the four characteristics I described above (and the many others I didn’t), must be an ontological difference. If one holds that the Image of God is not a difference in kind, then all the implications of the above-described characteristics’ absences are actually the reality- human intrinsic value does not exist, free will does not exist, moral responsibility does not exist, and the ability to reason does not exist.
While I do not defend common descent of humans with any animal (I’m not an evolutionary creationist), I must understand that not every evolutionary creationist holds to this view of the Image of God because of its dire philosophical and theological (biblical) implications. These theistic evolutionists hold, just as much as any creationist (young-earth or old-earth), that the Image of God appeared suddenly in history (as a special creative work of God) and that sudden appearance is evident in the fossil and archaeological record.
Where things get difficult, though, is that many naturalists insist that all features of humans appear gradually in the fossil and archaeological records. If that is true, then even the Image of God appears gradually. That would imply that the Image of God is merely a difference in degree and not in kind. So, if a Christian theistic evolutionist wishes to maintain common descent of humans with prior animals (and they wish to avoid the implications of merely a functional Image of God), then they must reject the interpretation of the historical records that naturalists offer regarding the Image’s features appearing gradually (descending from “lower” species).
What is really interesting is that the more that the data is reinterpreted to be consistent with an ontological Image of God (a sudden appearance), the more the line is blurred for the theistic evolutionist between the sudden appearance of the Image of God and the sudden appearance of humans. Perhaps a persuasive case for the rejection of common descent between humans and animals (and the acceptance of humans as a special creation of God independent of His other creations) is found in our defense of the proper view of the Image of God and its endowments (e.g. intrinsic value, free will, moral responsibility, and the ability to reason) upon humans. Our maintaining the proper view of the Image of God helps us to test and guide our view of human origins. If this has intrigued you, I highly recommend reading the book “Who Was Adam” by biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana to see the scientific evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God (and humans) in the scientific record.
One More Thing- Abortion and Active Euthanasia
Before I leave the origins debate, though, I do want to bring up one more implication for holding that the Image of God is merely a difference in the degree of development. If you are familiar with some of the more common defenses for abortion, you will know that one of the reasons offered to deny the unborn intrinsic value (and the intrinsic right to life) is the degree of their development. (Now, I have to be extremely careful not to equivocate on the term “degree of development,” because if the terms do mean the same thing in both the common descent view and the abortion view, then we have a serious problem.) Simply put, the argument for abortion from the degree of development points to the lack of certain features in the unborn that a fully developed human being possesses. The pro-abortion advocate uses this lack of development to conclude that the unborn are not really human, thus do not possess intrinsic value (which means that killing the unborn is perfectly acceptable).
In the book “The Case For Life,” pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf points out that the “degree of development” argument, applied consistently, also removes intrinsic value (thus justifies intentionally killing) from those living with health issues, including physical handicaps, degenerative diseases, mental disorders and others. If the Image of God is merely a matter of degree of development, then any human who manifests cognitive, creative, or physical limitations akin to those of our pre-human ancestors (on the theistic evolutionary view), they too necessarily lack the Image of God. This would include the unborn (abortion would be morally permissible) and the born (active euthanasia would be morally permissible).
This is one more way that we can use the proper view of the Image of God to test our view of human origins. Unfortunately, it can also be used in the opposite direction to justify abortion and active euthanasia- which is one more reason why maintaining the proper view of the Image of God is so important. We must hold to the proper view of the Image of God to guard against such logically fallacious and morally reprehensible (sinful) views from entering our worldview (even if we insist on maintaining the belief in the common descent of the physical human body).
Testing The Current Status of the Image of God
In the on-going debate about how God’s sovereignty and man’s free will work together, some Christians have opted to deny that man has free will at all by positing that the Image of God was destroyed at the Fall of Adam and Eve. However, when the implications I described above are explained, the Christian usually quickly changes their position, but in many cases the change holds that the Image of God was damaged specifically in a way to destroy human free will but maintain the other traits. While this may seem like an acceptable position, it poses a severe problem.
If intrinsic value does exist, but free will does not, then punishment is a moral evil because it is a violation of (attack against) the intrinsically valuable human, created in the Image of God, who did not have a choice to not commit the crime against another intrinsically valuable human, created in the Image of God. This means that if free will does not exist, God’s punishment of those who commit sin is His attacking Himself- a moral evil. However, we know from the Bible that God cannot sin, that He cannot deny Himself, that a house brought against itself cannot stand, and that God does punish the wicked. If a Christian is to maintain the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment (or even the heterodox view of annihilationism), yet deny free will, then they are saying that God is sinning in virtue of His immoral attack against a creature created in His Image.
Some have attempted to say that God can do whatever He wants. However, this then enters into the debate about God and morality. A common objection to God’s existence comes in the form of the Euthyphro dilemma. This poses the question, “Is God good because He says what is good, or because He is subject to good.” The dilemma is that if the first option is selected then morality is subjective and arbitrary (not objective) because God could simply change His mind about what is good, while if the second option is selected then God is not the highest being, thus He cannot be God. If it is not obvious, the attempted escape from the implication of denying free will but affirming intrinsic value fails because it is the first option of the dilemma- morality is then arbitrary and subjective, thus there is no objective standard by which God can judge, which adds another level of problems because without objective morality, nothing is evil, even an act that attacks a bearer of the Image of God (so, murder, abortion, rape, and every other “sin” is not objectively evil- it is merely God’s opinion at the moment that they are or are not)- moral responsibility essentially was destroyed if free will was also.
The only way to avoid this implication is to affirm that man’s free will is still intact regardless of how we view the effects of the Fall of Adam and Eve. Because of that, we can use the proper view of the current status of the Image of God (intact) to test our views regarding the coexistence of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will.
Conclusion
Recommended Books for More on this Topic
*Of course, mere observation of reality and reason do not always lead to the correct conclusion. The Image of God also provides the Moral Law that is written on all humans’ hearts (since all humans are made in the Image of God). Further, God has given us His special revelation that gives us explicit moral codes. But He did not just give us a book without establishing that it was divinely inspired by the Source of the Image of God. The Bible contains numerous claims about reality, and especially history when no human was present to observe the events (thus eliminating any reasonable natural explanation [e.g. that the author saw it or guessed it). Dr. Hugh Ross explains these in his numerous books on the scientific evidence for the inspiration and authority of the Bible. So, there are two additional tools that solidify man’s moral responsibility and the fact that all men “are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q1OxlG
When Does Personhood Begin? Part II
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Clinton Wilcox
Previously we looked at some of the arguments and assumptions made to assert that the unborn either are not humans or are not “persons”.
But now we’ll look at another kind of objection. Some pro-choice advocates know that the unborn are biologically human from fertilization. However, they’ll argue that while the unborn are humans biologically, they are not full-fledged humans in a “morally relevant” sense. While they may be a member of the species Homo Sapiens, they should not be considered a member of the human community until they fulfill certain criteria, or reach a certain stage of development.
In my previous entry, I looked at why we can’t use the immediately exercisable capacity for consciousness or the ability to feel pain as criteria for acceptance into the human community.
Remember that the right to life is a categorical property; you either have it or you don’t. As such, it can’t be tied to a property that comes in degrees (such as consciousness).
A natural right, like the right to live or to defend yourself, should not be confused with legal rights, such as the right to vote or drive. A natural right is a right that every human has by virtue of our common human nature, whereas a legal right is a right that the government grants based on our common status as citizens. These rights are gained through maturity or ability. When we say that an embryo is no morally different than you or me, we recognize that they have obvious differences. An embryo can no more drive a car than a toddler should be trusted to vote for president. However, the right to life is an intrinsic right shared by all humans, regardless of their maturity level or instrumental value to society.
So if not at fertilization, when should our natural rights be attributed to us? There are several stages along human development that are offered, but none of those stages succeed as an appropriate line to draw between a state of having no natural rights and a state of acquiring natural human rights. Let’s look at those.
1) Implantation/Quickening.
Once the mother’s egg is fertilized by the father’s sperm, both egg and sperm cease to exist and conception has occurred, bringing into existence a new, unique human individual. It takes about a week for the zygote to be propelled down the fallopian tube (via hair-like structures called cilia) and implant in the uterus.
The important thing to take note of is the fact that the entity that implants is the same entity that was conceived just a week ago. There is no grounds for considering the implanted embryo as a member of the human community, but not that same entity before it implanted itself there. Embryologists consistently agree that the embryo from fertilization is a living, human organism.
Doctor Bernard Nathanson [1] argues that at the moment of implantation, the unborn “establishes its presence to the rest of us by transmitting its own signals — by producing hormones — approximately one week after fertilization and as soon as it burrows into the alien uterine wall.” For Nathanson implantation is significant because prior to this time the unborn “has the genetic structure but is incomplete, lacking the essential element that produces life: an interface with the human community and communication of the fact that it is there.” [2]
Francis Beckwith notes that there are two flaws with this argument. First, you are who you are regardless of whether anyone notices you’re there. Being noticed does not change one’s nature. One interacts with a human being, one does not make a being human by interaction. Second, this does not explain humans conceived through IVF in a petri dish. Just as there is no difference between a Bill Clinton in a possible world who pumps gas in Little Rock, and the Bill Clinton in the actual world who is the former president of the United States, there is no essential difference between an embryo in a petri dish and an embryo implanted in the womb.
Quickening is the point in pregnancy at which the fetus’ movements can first be felt by the pregnant woman. I have grouped it here because the objection to this criterion is essentially similar to the objection for implantation. Aside from showing that the entity is the same living human organism before it quickened, one’s nature does not change once they have been noticed.
Additionally, if movement is necessary for full-fledged humanity, then this argument proves too much. This would disqualify the paralyzed from full-fledged humanity.
2) Viability.
Viability is the point in a pregnancy after which the unborn fetus can realistically survive outside the womb. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks’ gestation, although some babies have been born at 21 weeks and survived.
A major flaw with this argument is that it’s arbitrary. Fifty years ago, viability was considered to be at 28 or 29 weeks’ gestation. So one would have to argue that an unborn child is a full-fledged human at 24 weeks now, but fifty years ago that same child would not have been a full-fledged human. Viability is a moving target that changes as technology improves.
Also, Siamese twins depend on each other for their survival but both are considered to be persons. People on life support are also completely dependent on the machine for their survival, but if viability were necessary then we could kill them for any reason even if they have a good chance of recovery. It simply makes no sense to use viability as your criterion for establishing basic human rights.
3) Birth.
There is nothing “mystical” about birth that suddenly bestows upon an entity “humanity” or “personhood.” As I mentioned in my previous article, an eight-inch journey down the birth canal does not change the nature or value of the entity.
Many pro-choice people believe abortion should remain legal because of bodily rights arguments, and if they are right, then birth would be the sensible place to draw the line. After birth we would be obligated to keep you alive, but not before. This argument will be addressed in my next article.
4) After birth.
Some pro-choice philosophers (e.g. Michael Tooley and Peter Singer) support infanticide because there is no morally relevant difference between a child inside the womb and a child outside the womb. They are correct, even if their conclusion is repugnant to our moral intuitions. They are simply being consistent and allowing the pro-choice position to lead to its natural conclusion. I’ll plan on writing more on “after-birth abortion” in the future, but essentially the entity outside the womb is the same one inside the womb.
There simply isn’t any reason for these criteria to suddenly establish value or change the nature of the unborn. We know that the unborn are human from fertilization. As there is no morally relevant difference between a zygote, embryo, fetus, or toddler (or later stages of development), then all humans should be protected, even very young ones.
[1] Doctor Nathanson is a former abortionist and founder of NARAL, who later converted to the pro-life position.
[2] Dr. Bernard Nathanson (with Richard Ostling), Aborting America, (New York: Doubleday, 1979), p. 216, as quoted in Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p. 73.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2pUNPJH
10 Reasons to Accept the Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Fact
3. Are Miracles Possible?, Jesus ChristBy Brian Chilton
When I left the ministry due to my skepticism, one of the factors involved in my departure concerned the reliability of the New Testament documents and the resurrection of Jesus. The folks from the Jesus Seminar had me second-guessing whether I could trust what the New Testament said and if I could truly accept the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In July of 2005, my life changed. I entered the Lifeway Christian Bookstore in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and read three books that changed my life more than any other book outside the Bible. I discovered Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, Josh McDowell’s The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and McDowell’s A Ready Defense. I discovered that there are many reasons for accepting the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical fact.
Through the years, the evidence has increasingly mounted for the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection. This article will provide 10 of the most fascinating arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. This list is not exhaustive and my dealings with each argument is extremely brief. Nevertheless, I hope this list will provide a starting point for you to consider the authenticity of Jesus’s resurrection.
Conclusion:
Many other evidences could be given for the resurrection of Jesus. Thinking about the methods of history, one must understand that there is a reason why American accept the first President of the United States as George Washington and not Spongebob Squarepants. History backs up the claim that Washington was the first President. In like manner, history backs up the reality of Jesus’s resurrection. Now the question is this: what will you do with such information? Some will try to ignore the event. Some will try to dismiss it. Others will acknowledge the factual nature of the event and worship Jesus as the risen Lord. It is my prayer that you will do the latter.
Notes
[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).
[2] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 48-50, 64-69.
[3] Josephus, Antiquities XX.200.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Eusebius, Church History XXV.5.
[6] Primary sources are documents written by eyewitnesses. Secondary sources are documents written by individuals who know eyewitnesses. For instance, my grandfather was an eyewitness to the biggest naval battle in World War II history. From the information my dad gathered from him, he would be a secondary source, whereas my grandfather would have been a primary source.
[7] Douglas Groothius, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove; Nottingham, UK: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2011), 553-554.
[8] See J. Warner Wallace, “Rapid Response: I Think the Disciples Lied About the Resurrection,” Cold-case Christianity.com (October 17, 2016), retrieved April 11, 2017, http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/rapid-response-i-think-the-disciples-lied-about-the-resurrection/.
[9] See http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/07/22/The-Nazareth-Inscription-Proof-of-the-Resurrection-of-Christ.aspx#Article.
[10] Josephus, Antiquities XX.9.1.
[11] Tacitus, Annals XV.
[12] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars-Claudius 25 and Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars-Nero 16.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ppUPKK
A Rebuttal To The Philosophical Argument For God’s Triune Nature
CrossExamined10 Signs of a Cultic Church
CrossExaminedBy Brian Chilton
A few weeks back, I was troubled to hear about a Word of Faith congregation in Spindale, North Carolina, that was guilty of abusing its members. Reports included young children being punched by the leadership while being called Satanists. Jane Whaley and her husband are at the center of these accusations. The full report can be accessed at http://wspa.com/2017/02/27/spindale-church-accused-of-abuse-responds-to-accusations/.
wspa.com
Unfortunately, cultic churches abound. Just last night, a guest pastor from the Philippines spoke about particular cults in his land. He noted that one cult did not allow the congregants to open their Bibles as everything had to be interpreted by the leadership. Churches like these are identified as cultic churches as contrasted with authentic churches. Authentic churches are the body of Christ. They are the assemblies of baptized believers who fully adopt biblical principles and have the freedom to grow and develop in their relationship with Christ.
Cultic churches are aberrations of the authentic church. Cultic church lead by power-plays and draconian control over their members. Cultic churches are distinguished from cults in that their theology may be close to orthodoxy (right beliefs)—however, upon further investigation most cultic churches border on heresy. In contrast, cults are completely separated from Christian orthodoxy in their beliefs. However, cultic churches are not authentic churches due to questionable orthopraxy (right practice). Their actions do not represent the loving precepts found in God’s Word. So, how does one know that a church has the characteristics of a cultic church? Consider the following 10 signs of cultic churches.
1. Biblical orthodoxy is held in low-esteem. Most cultic churches are merely one step removed from being a full-blown cult. Biblical doctrine and theology are dismissed in favor of elevated levels of emotionalism. While there is nothing inherently wrong with emotionalism, the loss of biblical integrity develops into some downright bizarre practices. Orthodoxy affects orthopraxy. In authentic churches, biblical orthodoxy is both taught and practiced.
2. Personal interpretations are held to an equal or higher view than biblical truth. Recently, I interviewed cult expert, Michael Boehm. Boehm noted that many trained cult leaders can twist most Christians into knots by pulling various quotes from the Bible. Without proper training, cult and cultic leaders will make biblical connections that do not exist. Thus, the leader’s interpretation is given an equal, if not higher, standing than clear biblical precepts. In authentic churches, biblical truth is given greater weight then personal opinions.
3. Members are not allowed to grow intellectually. In cultic churches and with cultic leaders, intellect is dismissed. Members are discouraged from learning philosophy, history, science, systematic theology, or about anything with which the leader(s) is/are not familiar. Much of this anti-intellectualism comes by the leader being threatened with information that would show a potential weakness in the leader’s philosophy or theology. To show superiority, the cultic leader maintains a domineering attitude to show his/her supposed intellectual and/or spiritual superiority. In authentic churches, all members are encouraged to grow spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually.
4. Members are not allowed to ask questions of the leadership. In cultic churches, questions are condemned. Most likely, cultic leaders do not want to expose any weakness on their part. Thus, questions are restricted and shown to be a sin. The leader may show that to question him or her is like questioning God because the cultic leader has assumed a delusional godlike stature. In authentic churches, questions are the means of growth. The leader and leadership are transparent. People who have nothing to hide are transparent.
5. Traditions are equated to commandments. While all churches have favored traditions, cultic churches elevate their traditions to the level of the Ten Commandments. Jesus combated the Pharisees over this very issue. Jesus said to the Pharisees in reply to a question pertaining to their traditions,
In contrast, authentic churches—while they have traditions they love—will place biblical commands over personal desires. This is not to say that changing traditions is easy. But if an assembly sets an exorbitant and stringent set of traditions as a prerequisite for a person’s attendance to their church, then it is likely that the assembly is leaning towards a cultic code of conduct.
6. Members are required to follow harsh, legalistic rules. The sixth sign flows forth from the 5th. Members are required to follow a harsh set of rules. In places like the Word of Faith Fellowship, leaders determined where their members could live and even how a husband and wife could be intimate. Authentic churches…well…don’t. Authentic, Bible-based churches will promote members to live a holy lifestyle originating from biblical ethics. But, leaders realize that people are free to make their own decisions and are not dictatorial (1 Peter 5:1-5).
7. Outsiders are viewed with skepticism, evangelism is avoided. The seventh, eighth, and ninth signs are complementary. Since cultic leaders seek complete control of their members, outsiders are viewed with great skepticism. Potential members may be allowed in slowly and with great reservation. Cultic churches are not committed to the Great Commission. Evangelism is avoided. Cultic churches are committed to power and control. Authentic churches are committed to the gospel. Authentic Christian leaders have a passion to see souls come to Christ. Thus, healthy churches are mission-minded churches.
8. Exiting the church is difficult and may be met with threats. Since the cultic church is about power and control, cultic leaders do everything in their power to keep control over their members. Therefore, if a person attempts to leave, the leader(s) will emotionally, spiritually, financially, or even physically threaten the member. In stark contrast, authentic churches realize that their ministry may not suit everyone’s taste. Thus, while authentic churches seek to keep its members, threats are never employed. Remember, Jesus allowed Judas to betray him, fully knowing what Judas was planning.
9. Cultic churches are opaque. A strong sign on the spectrum of authenticity is transparency. Authentic churches are transparent as they have nothing to hide. This includes every aspect of ministry including financial matters. Cultic churches are almost always opaque and secretive. Cultic leaders do not want the general public to know what they are doing. The more secretive a movement, the more cause for concern. Jesus publicly taught, publicly performed miracles, was publicly crucified, publicly resurrected, was publicly seen alive after his resurrection, and publicly ascended into heaven.
10. The church desires its membership to become more like themselves than like Christ. The final sign of a cultic church deals with the end goal. What do the leaders desire? Cultic leaders want to make their members more like themselves. Authentic churches desire people to become more like Christ. If Christ is the Son of God, then he is the perfect example for one to model. When leaders become cultic, they desire people to become like themselves so that they can exert more power and control. Coercive and manipulative measures are used. Jesus, by contrast, allows people to come to him fully knowing what is expected of them. Concerning cultic leaders, Jesus warned those who abusively used people in his day, saying, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as fit for hell as you are” (Matthew 23:15)!
Conclusion
This article is not an attack against the church. The church is a blessing. Many good, Bible-based, churches exist and are thriving. A person needs to find a place where he or she can attend, grow, develop, and serve. However, we must realize that there are many places that claim to be churches, but do not possess characteristics that are honoring to the Lord. In Revelation, Jesus addressed seven churches (Rev. 2-3). Some of the churches were good, like Philadelphia. Others were bad, like Laodicea. Some places that call themselves churches are more in the realm of cultic than Christian. Be watchful! John warns that we should “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). My prayer is that multiple Bible-based churches will grow and expand, while cultic churches will diminish and cease. If you are in a cultic church, for the good of yourself and your loved ones, leave! Find a good, Bible-based church in your area. A good church family is a great blessing and worth the effort to find.
Post-note: Jonny Scaramanga argues that there should not be a distinction made between authentic churches and cultic churches. While I agree with Scaramanga that all churches need to examine their practices to ensure that they are not abusive, I fully disagree with him in saying that there are not distinctions between the two. The patterns of the two are quite different. Scaramanga is writing from a bias against Christianity in general as he left Christian fundamentalism for, what appears to be, atheism. The distinctions that have been discussed in this article are not only found between the authentic and cultic churches of today, but are clearly observable in the leadership style of Jesus as opposed to the extreme Pharisees and cultic leaders of his day. Scaramanga’s article can be read at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/leavingfundamentalism/2016/05/23/stop-calling-abusive-churches-cults/.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2oM9kIy
Is How We Live More Important Than What We Believe? (Bad Secular Wisdom Series #1)
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
Today I’m starting a blog series called, “Bad Secular Wisdom.” If you’re not familiar with the term, a blog series is where an author writes multiple posts on a related subject. I’m not normally a fan of such series because I think they get old fast, but in this case there are so many interesting and important topics for Christian parents that fall under the umbrella of “Bad Secular Wisdom,” I’m excited to do it. I’ll be posting once per month in the series, with remaining posts on other subjects.
The reason this series is so important is that our world is filled with bad secular wisdom…little pieces of a godless worldview that spread like a virus and infect the minds of young people before they even realize it. They sound good, but are harmful narratives that kids too often attach to their Christian worldview without understanding the great inconsistencies. My hope is that this series will inspire you to challenge your kids to think critically about each of the subjects we cover.
For the first post, we’re going to tackle the illogical idea that how we live is more important than what we believe.
Is How We Live More Important Than What We Believe?
I first came across the phrase “how we live is more important than what we believe” on a chalkboard outside of a coffee shop last year. I shook my head, thinking the baristas should stick to coffee making. Since then, however, I’ve seen the idea pop up in all kinds of places.
One well-known person who actively promotes this notion is Gretta Vosper. Vosper is a United Church of Canada minister…who’s also an atheist.
In 2015, a review committee from her denomination found that she was “not suitable” to continue in her role because she doesn’t believe in God (a shocking committee conclusion, I know). But Vosper’s congregation has insisted on keeping her as pastor, despite the fact she no longer preaches about Christianity.
If that sounds hard to believe, this quote from one loyal church member will help you understand the mentality of the congregation: “It’s not about coming to hear that I’m a sinner. That is so yuck. This fulfills my need to feel upbeat. The services are more happy and joyful, more interested in community and justice.”
Vosper has authored several books, including one called, With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important Than What We Believe. On her website, she emphasizes, “We’re not going to stop trying to make the world a better place. We hope you don’t either.”
Vosper and her church community are clearly committed to living lives that benefit the Earth and those who live on it. They’re presumably doing many good things for society, and that’s commendable. But is Vosper’s claim true, that how we live is more important than what we believe?
As we’ll see in this post, this is bad secular wisdom.
It’s not consistent with atheism or Christianity!
Inconsistent with Atheism
Saying how we live is more important than what we believe presumes there is some way all people should live. No one has an objective basis for claiming that, however, if God doesn’t exist—should implies a moral obligation. But if humans are nothing more than a bunch of molecules in motion, to whom would we be morally obliged? To other molecules in motion? Clearly not. In a world without God, no one can prescribe a way of living for anyone else because there’s no moral authority, and, therefore, no objective basis for doing so. How a person “should” live can only be a matter of opinion.
An atheist who chooses a life of crime because he or she doesn’t believe there’s any moral significance to our existence is living more consistently within the atheistic worldview than one who claims all people should live in a particular way.
Inconsistent with Christianity
The Bible says that what you believe about Jesus has eternal significance:
From a Christian perspective, how you live cannot be more important than what you believe—what you believe determines where you will spend eternity. To be clear, however, that doesn’t mean the way in which a Christian lives his or her life doesn’t matter. The Bible says that “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17).
A genuine love for God results in a life of good works for God’s glory. Belief and action go hand-in-hand.
Furthermore, only Christians and other theists have an objective basis for determining what it means to do “good” works in the first place. In a godless world, there’s no objective moral standard by which works can even be called good.
The Bottom Line
Anyone, regardless of what they believe about God, can do good things with their life. Christians, atheists, and people with all kinds of other beliefs help the homeless, give money to charities, participate in environmental causes, fight child abuse, advocate for crime victims, and much more. For atheists, doing things like these that Christians and other theists would call good is a matter of preference…one as morally legitimate as a life of crime. While some atheists, like Vosper, might say all people should live to make the world a better place, that’s an objective claim that’s inconsistent with an atheistic worldview. “How you live is more important than what you believe” is a belief itself, and ironically determines how a person lives.
While the lives of atheists and Christians sometimes look similar in the good works they do, the Bible is clear that those similarities don’t make believing in Jesus any less important.
Belief matters…in an eternally significant way.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2oM0gDt
The Omnibenevolence of God
Theology and Christian ApologeticsGod is Omnibenevolent! Simply put, God is perfectly good and all-loving. Not only does the Bible make this clear (Psalm 100:5; Psalm 145:17; John 3:16), but logicians have also deductively concluded this apart from the Bible through the Moral Argument and the Ontological Argument.
Now, if God were simply omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), but not perfectly good and all-loving, then we would have reason to be frightened. In fact, this is how Muslims view Allah. According to Islam, God is not all-loving, and whatever Allah does is simply called “good,” even if it is really hateful. As a result, Muslims have no assurance of salvation (unless they die in Jihad).
The Original Sin?
Some Christians fall into a similar trap and incorrectly think of God this way. Indeed, the church has been infected with a low view of God for ages. A.W. Tozer, in his book The Knowledge of the Holy, says, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” In the preface of this same book Tozer writes:
This low view of God has infected the minds of most Christians today, but I believe its roots can be found in the very beginning. The original sin was not eating of a forbidden fruit, but rather, doubting the omnibenevolence of God. This was the trap Satan lured Eve into in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3):
“Did God really say…?”
Satan convinces Eve to consider the idea that God is not really interested in her ultimate flourishing. The fact of the matter, however, is that God does desire the ultimate flourishing for each and every human being. This is supported by scripture such as John 3:16, 1 Tim 2:4, 1 Tim 4:10, and 2 Peter 3:9. It is also supported in the first book of the Bible. Consider this counterfactual:
IF Adam and Eve would have kept God’s commands (and all of their offspring followed suit), then every single human WOULD experience ultimate flourishing and not experience any suffering.
Thus, God created a world in which it was logically possible for all people to flourish. However, Eve doubted that God was omnibenevolent and desired the best for her. This doubt led to the fall of man and terrible suffering has followed in its wake.
Many people continue to doubt the perfect goodness and love of God. Some Calvinistic theologians (like Arthur Pink) actually teach that God does not love all people or desire the best for all people! This is a horrible mistake — a sin — that leads to weak faith.
Additionally, some Christians hold to a view called “Divine Determinism” and think that God controls all thoughts and beliefs. If this is the case, then God forces most people to believe lies. If God forces some to believe truth and others to believe lies, then how can you be certain that God is not forcing you to believe false things too (including your view of divine determinism)? This low view of God ultimately leads to many in the church doubting their salvation just as Muslims do (both views of God are wrong).
Indeed, this low view of God influenced the Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent. A.D. 1563. They incorrectly affirm that one should doubt their salvation in Chapter XII:
When one doubts or rejects the fact that God is omnibenevolent then major problems arise. The primary problem is that their presupposition of God — a low view of God — was incorrect in the first place. They follow in the footsteps of Adam and Eve.
A Maximally Great God
Consider the perfect goodness of God: Because God is perfectly good He is perfectly holy. When humans freely choose to do good things, then we approximate to the perfect standard of God, and we do holy things! Worshipping God is holy. Loving your neighbor is holy. Loving your enemy is holy!
We are not perfectly holy, but we should make every effort to approximate to the One who is! The Bible says this:
God is the standard of goodness and therefore, we can always trust the commands he has given to be perfectly good. Moreover, since God is perfectly intelligent, then His commands are always the most intelligent thing to do. Therefore, it is just plain stupid and wrong not to obey the commands of God!
How do we know God’s commands? Through Jesus’ declarations validated by His resurrection! Consider Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39:
1- Love God first!
2- Everybody love everybody (from your neighbors to your enemies)!
Christians ought to be the most loving people on the face of the planet!
Next, consider God’s perfect love and what it means to be all-loving which is part of omnibenevolence. The Bible makes it clear: “God is love” (1 John 4:16).
So, if God is love, then God’s very nature is loving. As William Lane Craig wrote in his children’s book, God is ALL-Loving:
This is a perfect Daddy, right? I am not a perfect dad by any means and do not require my son, Ethan, to be perfect either. I know he will make mistakes, he will sin, he will disappoint me, and he will be anything other than perfect. But even though I know these things about Ethan, it does not mean that I do not love him with all of my heart. I am still willing to die for my imperfect son! If that is how imperfect dads are, imagine a perfectly good, intelligent, and loving Heavenly Father! God does not love you based on your actions – He just loves you and desires you to love Him in return. But He will not force you into a relationship with Him; you must make the choice to enter that love relationship or not.
That is what a saving relationship is: when a human freely chooses to love God in return, then a true love marriage occurs – a saving relationship with God. Because God first loved us, when we respond to His love and freely choose to love God back, we are saved! This is demonstrated by Jesus when he tells the Parable of the Prodigal Son found in Luke 15:11-32. Jesus is telling this fictional story of a dad – a great dad – who is loving his son the way God loves all humans (John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Jesus is telling this story of a great and loving father so that those listening to this story will begin to understand the way God loves all humans.
You see, the father’s love was always available to his son. The father’s love never went anywhere. The dad never stopped loving his son with all of his heart. However, the son made some choices – free choices – which separated him from the love of his father. It was not until the son made the choice – the free choice – to come back to his father’s love and to love his father in return, that their relationship was restored.
If the son would have never made the free choice to return to his father, then their relationship would have never been restored.
This is representative of God’s love for YOU. God loves you unconditionally, just as the father in the parable, and His love is always there for you. With that said, however, you and I are responsible for our own decisions, and we can make horrible choices that separate us from God’s perfect love.
Eternal Divorce
Some people freely choose to separate from God for eternity (this is called hell)! Since it is logically impossible for God to force a person to freely choose to love Him (that is on the same incoherent level as married bachelors or triangles with four corners), then some will freely choose to divorce themselves from God forever — but it does not have to be this way!
Jesus did all the work for you, but now the ball is in your court. You have a real choice to make and are now responsible for your eternity!
Do you want perfect love with your Creator? It is available through the atoning power of Jesus Christ. You have a perfect Father – a Daddy – who loves you with his entire essence! You are worth more than the entire universe to Him! He desires an eternal true love relationship with everyone — including YOU.
Conclusion
You might feel like the prodigal son. You might be in a place right now that you know you are not supposed to be. The prodigal son had to make a choice – a free choice – and swallow his pride and come back to his father. If you are in a place that is far from God right now, then I encourage you to make the same choice – swallow your pride and come back to your Daddy. He is a perfect Father and His love is waiting for you!
Stay reasonable (Philippians 4:5),
Tim Stratton
Notes
A special thank you to Shannon Eugene Byrd for finding the Council of Trent quote!
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2n2J1l1
3 Startling Truths about the Early Church from the Pre-New Testament Texts
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian Chilton
Throughout the New Testament, one will find early creeds, formulations, and hymns that predate the New Testament itself. These texts are often called “proto-New Testament texts.” Proto-New Testament texts date back to the earliest church from those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus himself. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is perhaps the most popular of the proto-New Testament texts as it bears heavily on the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Concerning 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner write,
So, what can we learn about the earliest church from the proto-New Testament texts? In the next two sections, I will provide a listing of the more popular—and generally accepted—proto-New Testament creeds and hymns. In conclusion, I will examine the implications of these texts as it pertains to the beliefs of the earliest church.
Creeds
Hymns
Conclusion
What can one gather from the aforementioned proto-New Testament texts? In stark contrast to what many liberal theologians purport—that is, that the divinity and miracles of Jesus were late inventions, the following three observations are made. Frankly, it is startling how much emphasis the church placed on these three truths.
Historians, apologists, theologians, and laity alike can learn a great deal from the proto-New Testament texts. This article has provided only a sample of the early texts found in the New Testament. The article has not even considered the great wealth of proto-New Testament texts found in the four canonical Gospels. Our New Testament is a trustworthy source for information about Jesus of Nazareth as its basis is found in the earliest church, whom had been given their message from Jesus himself.
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2mN1KRy
Unholy Benefits of Atheism
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Rajkumar Richard
Examining atheism from the vantage point of Christianity motivates a Christian to ask two questions. First, “what would I gain if I convert to atheism?” Second, “is there any value to the benefits stockpiled from atheism?”
What would I gain if I convert to atheism?
Thankfully, the “Creed” penned by the English poet and music journalist Steve Turner reflects the panoramic voice of an atheist whose godless worldview mandates an embrace of relativism:
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same –
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
Postscript:
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear:
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
The benefit an atheist accrues is predicated on an assumption that atheism sets him free.
If I’m an atheist, I’d be liberated from religious demands. I no longer need to love and worship God.
If I do not love God, I’d not be shackled to a morally pure life required by Christianity. As Friedrich Nietzsche thought, if God does not exist, everything is permitted. I am my own god.
Decisions abhorrent to a well meaning Christian would be desirable to an atheist. An atheist can abort his / her unborn child. Gaining wealth by hook or by crook cannot be condemned by moral relativism. Fraud and bribery are acceptable. If anyone impedes his pursuit, he can bulldoze them, figuratively and literally. Thanks to atheism.
Pleasure in all forms is acceptable to an atheist, for atheism is sufficiently undergirded by the relativistic paradigm. An atheist is free to practice adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, child sex and what not. Thanks to the power of subjective moral values.
This is not it.
An atheist could also live a depressing life, for he would suffer a constant existential struggle.
This metaphysical struggle is between moral relativism and the law of the land, which is fundamentally predicated on objective moral values (you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you cannot rape etc.).
Although moral relativism prescriptively allows an atheist to gain wealth through unholy means, the law of the land legislates various stipulations that stifles and could imprison him for gaining wealth through unholy means. So he should painfully ponder over the wisdom behind the law of the land not being predicated on moral relativism!!
Jeffrey Dahmer, an American serial killer, expressed this struggle, “If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…” (Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.).
Is there any value to the benefits stockpiled from atheism?
Atheists who wholly experience the unholy pleasures of this material world is destined to become weary of pleasure so to doom themselves into the darkened dungeons of meaninglessness.
Edward Young, in his work “Night Thoughts” ridiculed pleasure, “Sure as night follows day, Death treads in Pleasure’s footsteps round the world, When Pleasure treads the paths which Reason shuns.” And wasn’t it G.K Chesterton who said, “Meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain. Meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure.”?
The author of Ecclesiastes pronounced the meaninglessness of pleasure, “I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good.” But that also proved to be meaningless. “Laughter,” I said, “is madness. And what does pleasure accomplish?” I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly—my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was good for people to do under the heavens during the few days of their lives.
I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards…I amassed silver and gold for myself…I acquired male and female singers, and a harem as well—the delights of a man’s heart. I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me.
I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my labor, and this was the reward for all my toil. Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 2: 1-11, NIV).
So atheism does not set anyone free instead it imprisons its devotees to meaninglessness. Atheism offers perishable benefits, not enduring benefits.
What about those atheists who have lost faith in God because of the problem of evil and suffering? If you’re one of those atheists, please read the book of Habakkuk in the Bible.
The author of Habakkuk complains to God about evil, injustice and God’s apparent inactivity. But after hearing God’s response, he wholeheartedly proclaimed, “Though the cherry trees don’t blossom and the strawberries don’t ripen, Though the apples are worm-eaten and the wheat fields stunted, Though the sheep pens are sheepless and the cattle barns empty, I’m singing joyful praise to God. I’m turning cartwheels of joy to my Savior God. Counting on God’s Rule to prevail, I take heart and gain strength. I run like a deer. I feel like I’m king of the mountain!” (Habakkuk 3: 17-19, MSG).
To conclude, yes, atheism offers a plethora of unholy benefits. But unholy benefits cannot enrich life.
There’s a God. HE desires that we love HIM. When we love God truly and wholly, we don’t gain pleasure from anything the material world has to offer. We find pleasure in enjoying God’s presence and the peace HE offers us through the good and the bad days of our lives. Because we love HIM, we long to be with HIM forever – even beyond this earthly life.
So let’s echo the words of the author of Ecclesiastes, who after having considered everything the material world has to offer, finds meaning in God alone, “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12: 13-14, NIV).
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2nxaiun
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
The key to acquiring high-level musical skills is something called deliberate practice. The more deliberate practice you do, the better you get—and this applies to any skillful activity. But deliberate practice is not the same thing as ordinary practice. Ordinary practice often involves simply repeating something you can already do pretty well. Deliberate practice, by contrast, means that you are taking a step forward. You are doing something you find difficult—and once you have mastered it, you will be a step nearer to perfecting your skill. One of the defining characteristics of deliberate practice is that generally it isn’t fun—which is why excellence is rare.”
Excerpt From: Powell, John. “Why You Love Music.”
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed…
So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate…
Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth, God’s work must truly be our own.”
Excerpt From: Jackie Gingrich Cushman. “The Essential American.”
Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”
“How much lumber did you take?” the priest asked.
“I took enough to build my home and enough for my son’s house. Then I took enough to build houses for my two daughters. Oh, and our cottage at the lake.”
“This is a very serious offense,” the priest said. “ I’ll have to think of a far-reaching penance. Have you ever considered doing a retreat?”
“No, Father, I never have,” the man replied. “But if you can get the plans, I can get the lumber.” -M. Hodgin
Excerpt From: John C. Maxwell. “The Complete 101 Collection.”