Archive for the ‘atheism’ Category

Friends,

Here’s a funny story from the Christian Post: “No God” Ads to Hit London Buses. I guess Dick and his friends at the British Humanist Association are raising money (or have already and continue to do so) in order to put advertisements on city buses. Says the article:

The slogan is the brainchild of the British Humanist Association (BHA), an atheist organization that seeks to promote a world without religion where people are “free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.”Among the campaign’s supporters is well-known atheist activist Richard Dawkins, who promised to match BHA’s goal of raising $9,000 for the ads, according to BBC.

But the group has now raised $59,000 on its own.

“Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride – automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children,” Dawkins told BBC.

What are they putting on the ads? “There’s Probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” These people are not real atheists; they’re posers. They don’t even have the sack to say: “There is No God.” Wimps. Chickens. Cowards. If they were real atheists they would state up front what they really mean and they would not be ashamed of it. I have now totally lost all respect for Dick and I will henceforth not be purchasing any more of his books.

Notice that the article calls this the ‘brainchild’ of the BHA. So all those ‘Brites’ and this is the best they could come up with? There probably is no God? Seriously? That is absolute genius! Really, these people need to stop embarrassing themselves in public.

Here all this time I thought he was serious. He’s just joking around. On the other hand, one person did get something right:

“This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life,” said the Rev. Jenny Ellis, a Methodist spirituality and discipleship officer.

I don’t know what a spirituality and discipleship officer is, but I think she is right. If such a thing gets people to thinking about whether or not such a statement is true, then this is a good thing. I have a suspicion we’re all going to find out some day anyhow whether we like it or not. We should say thanks to all the fake-atheists for doing some evangelism for us in the meantime.

Posers.

jerry

Technorati Tags, , , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Advertisements

Friends,

I have had this sneaking suspicion for a while that Atheists really don’t have a problem with ‘God’ as much as they do with Christians or Christianity.

I don’t know too much about Ray Comfort except that I think he is a big fan of Kirk ‘Buck’ Cameron, but he issued an interesting challenge to Atheists in a Christian Worldview Network post today. He wrote in part:

If you are an atheist, I hope I’m ruffling your feathers. I want to get under your skin and ask why you don’t have the courage to even whisper to Moslems what you keep shouting at Christians. Prove me wrong. Get onto a Moslem website and tell them that you don’t believe their god exists. Do your little “I don’t believe in Zeus” thing. Tell them they believe a myth. Talk about Mohammed as you do Jesus (use lower case for Mohamed). Do your “I don’t believe in the flying spaghetti monster” thing. Tell them that we weren’t made by a god (lower case), but that they evolved from primates (that will go down well). Also, let them know in no uncertain terms that the Koran is full of mistakes (give some examples), and that their mosques are full of hypocrites.

Well, I’d like to up the ante just a bit and issue a challenge to certain people on the blogosphere to do the same thing. Among those I’d like to challenge are those running ‘Discernment Ministries’ who constantly criticize those within the Church who hold to different views of Christian Faith than they do. Instead of biting and snacking on your brothers and sisters in Christ, take it up a notch and start criticizing those who are the real enemies of the faith: Those who actually do hold to a different gospel. I think that is a fair challenge to issue.

jerry

Friends,

I have posted many thoughts about evolution and its impact on the general population of the world. I’d like to share someone else’s thoughts tonight. These thoughts concern how replacing the Creator with evolution has destroyed our understanding of sin. Consider:

The basic reason why our modern Western culture has lost the concept of sin is that the reality of the true Creator-God has been abandoned. The basic reason why all nonbiblical philosophies and religions lack a true concept of sin is that none includes the concept of a Creator-God whose will is law. The doctrine of ex nihilo creation and the doctrine of sin are thus inseparable; sin is a meaningful concept only in the light of the fact of creation. (Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once For All, 168)

. . .

Why is the denial of personal guilt such a widespread phenomenon today? As we have noted, the very idea of sin presupposes the existence of law, which presupposes the existence of a transcendent Creator-God; it also presupposes the reality of human free will. But these are among the very things that are most frequently attacked and denied in our modern world. The Creator-God is replaced by chance evolution, and various forms of secular determinism are constantly used to cancel man’s responsibility for his antisocial behavior. For example, son say that such behavior is due to childhood trauma and other forms of negative environmental conditioning. People are not sinners; they are victims. Others attribute it all to quirks in one’s genes or chromosomes or brain structure; thus we have ‘natural-born’ killers, alcoholics, homosexuals, and adulterers. (Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All, 193)

What’s worse is that this is how we train children from day one. Then we act shocked when they live out the realities of a life of no accountability to anyone other than themselves. But we should probably continue teaching children that they are nothing more than the chance configuration of randomly mutated selfish genes (uh, sarcasm alert.)

What I wonder is, how can children be taught accountability (to something higher than the pathetic standards of mere humanity) when they are deliberately not taught about God and are deliberately taught atheism (either by omission or commission.)

One wonders. Or not.

jerry

Friends,

I have two things to say about this story at the Christian Post: Borders Tags Atheist Book With…

First, I think some people are way, way to sensitive. Consider these two well-meaning, but theologically under-read people:

“I am quite sure that Borders intended their Christmas card as a joke. However, I personally find it an ill-judged and insensitive joke,” he said, as reported by Baptist Times.

He continued, “Christians have always been used to being punch bags but I would have hoped that, in a society in which we are seeking to show respect to all people and beliefs, we might have grown out of this kind of nonsense.”

He was supported by Justin Thacker, head of theology at the Evangelical Alliance, who said, “It won’t surprise me if this spectacularly fails. Christmas still holds a high place in people’s hearts – I think a lot of people will be offended by it.”

Does the good Rev. really believe that we will ever grow out ‘of this kind of nonsense’? He certainly needs to read his Bible more often. Why be offended? At what? Doesn’t ignorance speak for itself? “Stupid is as stupid does.” Why not laugh?

Second, I happen to think this is really funny and quite clever. I wish people had a sense of humor:

“Borders wouldn’t do this to any other religious festival. Borders [has] made a strategic mistake and Christians will boycott it.”

What’s funny is that there are a whole bunch of Christians (including myself at times) who will shop at Borders when Borders sells pornography, books by Richard Dawkins (and other atheists), Harry Potter (gasp!), erotica, and a whole host of other genres–including Christian books–but if they give away a parody card with an atheist’s book and the whole world of Christianity is turned upside down. Seriously, don’t these people have anything else to worry about? (Oh, and when it comes to books, if Borders has a better price than Barnes and Noble I’m going to Borders regardless of what they are giving away. It’s all about the book and the price!)

All one has to do is say, “No thanks. I would not like your card today.” Some people are so lame. And I hate to say it but when Christians say stupid things like ‘Christians will boycott it’ there is really a pall cast over Christianity.

This is as bad as Christians who watch the Emmy’s getting upset when Kathy Griffen says something bad about Jesus. What do you expect? Seriously? Are there not more serious issues to be contending with right now? Seriously?

jerry

Gotta Love Atheists

Friends,
Families of Fallen Utah Highway Patrol Troopers Fight Atheist Group Over Roadside Cross Memorials.

Don’t atheists have something better to do with their time, like, say, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless?

jerry

Friends,

I haven’t yet figured out this fella named Dinesh D’Souza. He seems to be all the rage nowadays among certain wings of churchianity. However, I came across this little essay he wrote and published at Townhall.com and I thought it was a rather interesting piece: Are Atheists the New Gays? Mr D’Souza spends the majority of the short essay mocking Richard Dawkins (which is fine as far as it goes) because of his campaign to style the atheists of the world as the ‘new gays’ (as if atheists have to go through all the terrible ordeals that homosexuals have to go through, like getting married, and suchlike. Imagine how tough it must be for a homosexual atheist to get married! Just kidding. Sort of.) Anyhow…Mr D’Souza writes:

Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the closet. Well, what if they don’t want to? I doubt that Dawkins would support “outing” atheists. But can an atheist “rights” group be far behind? Hate crimes laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?

Honestly, I think the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd. It seems strange for Dawkins to urge atheists to come out of the closet in the style of the all-American boy standing up on the dining table of his public high school and confessing that he is a homosexual? Dawkins, being British, doesn’t seem to recognize that this would not win many popularity contests in America.

He also writes about Dawkins’ ongoing attempts to re-tool the whole atheist movement by giving atheists a new name: Brights. (I like the name the Bible gives them in Psalm 14:1.) Whatever. Does it really matter to most atheists what they are called? Does the change of the moniker really change the identity or belief? Will putting a positive spin on un-belief really change the general conception of atheists in this world? (Uh, no?) I suspect that some atheists would be content to be called Happy, Beer Drinkers, Liberals, or Red Sox Fans.

But here’s the part of the essay I like the best because it addresses some of those assumptions that people make that really irritate me. Mr D’Souza wrote:

Basically Dawkins is saying if you are religious, then science is your enemy. Either you choose God or you choose science. No wonder that so many Americans say they are opposed to evolution. They believe that evolution is atheism masquerading as science, and Dawkins confirms their suspicions. Indeed Dawkins takes the same position as the most ignorant fundamentalist: you can have Darwin or you can have the Bible but you can’t have both.

Oh, but here, ironically, I agree with Dawkins far more than D’Souza. Fact is, you cannot have both Darwin and the Bible. This is a serious issue and for as much as D’Souza seems to be bright, he has missed the mark here. I might suggest there is a difference between what he refers to as an ‘ignorant fundamentalist’ and a ‘by faith we believe that God made what is seen out of what is unseen evangelical Christian’ who accepts Genesis as an accurate reflection of history, and the foundational substance for evangelical theology. In this case, I agree with Dawkins and, in my opinion, D’Souza loses big time precisely because he seems willing to exclude faith (I could be reading him incorrectly.) He evidently misunderstands the troubling tension that exists between these two fundamentally discordant world-views. I haven’t read enough of D’Souza’s work to know if this is what he thinks, but if I take that last sentence at face value, he has lost me as an audience already because I reject out of hand that faith and reason stand opposed to one another as Darwin and the Bible do.

One cannot have both. I agree with Dawkins 100% on this because the entire premise of Darwinism is that it does not need God, god, a god, Zeus, Thor, Mars, or gods to work (unless, of course, natural selection or selfish genes are divine.) Why would the Darwinist concede to theistic evolution when it would defeat the entire premise to Darwinian evolution? I’ll go ahead and say it for the record: You can’t have both. To my knowledge, Darwin made no concessions or room for the ‘theistic’ in theistic evolution. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

But I understand. There are certain people in the world of churchianity who are terrified to let Genesis stand on its own. They are horrified at the thought of being labeled unthinking rubes who rely on faith in order to believe in fairy-tales. They are terrified to admit to the unbelieving world that they have a simple faith and trust that ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Here’s what it is: They are so consumed with the idea of silencing the Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ of the world that they have to resort to arguments that lack faith instead of promote it lest they be accused of being little more than those dunderhead, ignorant fundamentalists who actually believe what Scripture says. In their attempts, in other words, to undo the ‘brightness’ of the Brights, they fall into the same error as the Brights by dismissing faith as compatible with reason and relying soley on reason to accomplish their task. It’s not that we (Christians) need Darwin and the Bible to be compatible, that’s not the error because we know they are not, and trying to make them compatible (through things like theistic evolution) does not advance the cause of Christ. (And this is a matter of the Cause of Christ.)

The error he makes, rather, is in assuming there is no compatibility between Faith and Reason, as if they stand in opposition to one another! Nothing could be further from the truth. This is D’Souza’s error. He evidently thinks that those who believe in Genesis do so without Reason, that they rely too much on faith (as if!), and that faith and Reason are incompatible (this was also Stephen Jay Gould’s error in Rocks of Ages.) Christians are not unthinking people, nor are we un-Reasonable people. The very fact that we cling to a book (that contains letters (and numbers), words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books of varying style and genre) is evidence that we are thinking, Reasoning people. We do not serve a God who is unreasonable either. He tells us: Count the Cost of being a disciple. He says, “Come let us reason together” (Isaiah 1). Frankly, no reasonable person is going to become a disciple without counting the cost.

PT Forsyth wrote,

“If we have any sense of judgment we have much reason to fear. I cannot understand how any one with a sense of judgment can discard the atonement and live without terror. But, if we have the sense of the holy and the faith of judgment, the faith that Christ took God’s judgment on the world, we must be of good cheer. The world is judged for good and all in Christ. The last judgment is by. All our judgments are in its ascending wake” (The Justification of God, 221.)

Thus we come full circle. It is not the Christian who lives in opposition to reason, and it is not faith that stands opposed to reason, it is the atheist: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'” Who is opposed to reason but the one who rejects God?

To be sure, I’ll need to read some of D’Souza’s work before I know if this is really how he thinks about us ‘ignorant fundamentalists.’ But for the time being, isn’t it rather ironic that ‘ignorant fundamentalists’ and Richard Dawkins actually agree on something?

jerry

UPDATE: I just came across this: Militant Atheism Gives Rise to Christian Apologetics.

“[I]f people look at science, they will find faith and they will find reason; the two cannot be incompatible and they have one author, namely God,” said Midland theologian Norbert Dickman, who was scheduled to present what the Christian response should be to the rise of the atheist voice at an Illinois church on Tuesday.

Friends,

I think you will appreciate this: Is Belief in Divine Creation Rational? This is a lecture by David Anderson. I’m piggybacking on a post by William Dembski at Uncommon Descent. I  listened to about the first 15 minutes online then downloaded it to my mp3. So far, I’m impressed. I think you will be too.

You may also want to read this: Evolutionary Hymn by CS Lewis.

And I know you will find this intriguing: If Neo-Darwinism Fails, then What? I too hope they put this online as mp3 or transcript. Good Luck!

For some evolutionary humor, check out this Playground Slide Recall.

How about an interview with Anthony Flew?

Finally, Can Public Schools Be “Neutral”?

Have fun with all this. Hmm. Perhaps the atheist and the Darwinist do not have a monopoly on knowledge after all.

jerry

Friends,

Here’s part two in my ongoing list.

11. The assumption that those outside the Church have a right to tell those inside the church how to conduct themselves with respect to the Scripture.

12. The assumption that the Church cannot make statements about sin in this world. It seems it’s OK for the world to judge the church, but the church cannot judge the world.

13. The assumption that faith is invalid evidence for truth.

14. The assumption that only those who accept hedonism and anarchy are culturally advanced.

15. The assumption that Christians are a blight on this world.

16. The assumption that the Church ought to be doing more to solve this or that crisis that the world caused because of sin. Or, for that matter, that we should prevail upon God in our prayers to end this or that catastrophe whose origin is in sin.

17.  The assumption that it is the Church’s responsibility to end world poverty by using our tithes and offerings to supply what the world is lacking.

18. The assumption that the opinion of atheists matters more than the opinion of a Christian.

19. The assumption that God believes in atheists.

20. The assumption that Christ faith has no place in the arenas of politics, public education, and the like.

That’s part two. This is getting depressing. I’ll try to keep the angst to a minimum. I’m just tired to death of the unbelievers in this world thinking that their ideas are all that matters–that they are the true shapers of opinion and culture. You might call this my 95 Thesis to the World.

jerry

Friends,

I first came across this at Uncommon Descent, but it is so good I thought it deserved its own place here: Atheism: An Intellectual Revolt or Pelvic Rebellion by Doug Giles at Townhall.com. I was especially intrigued by Giles’ comments about the atheist’s fear of accountability. I’ll note two such comments:

In addition, ladies, Darwin didn’t lose his faith because he discovered natural selection; he dumped God because he couldn’t stomach the doctrine of eternal accountability and damnation. That’s what made him switch teams. I think that was about ten years after he had married his first cousin. Git-R-Done, Charlie!

And also:

Look, I’m not buying that the atheists’ altruistic self-professed pursuit of reason is what undergirds their conclusion that God does not exist; I believe it’s because they want to believe that they’ll never be called into eternal accountability for their temporal actions by a holy God. Talk about an opiate for the masses!

The other day, I was commenting about why Christians ought to reject Darwinism. I wrote this:

If I believe that the Bible is not telling me the truth about God, about Creation, about Redemption, then I will live like that. I will likely care nothing for God. I may not commit murder or rape, but I will likely live without regard to what God has said about Creation, Redemption, God, Jesus Christ, Sin, and the like. In other words, I will live without regard for God, I will reject him, I will ignore him, I will blaspheme, ridicule, and mock him. I can personally think of nothing more offensive than to disregard God, and ignore or ridicule the work He accomplished through Jesus Christ at the cross. If God did not create, then just exactly how am I accountable to God? But if God did create, then I am wholly accountable to Him.

The same principle applies to atheism. Atheists think that if they just wish God away they can live however they want, with no ultimate accountability. In other words, there is no ultimate justice in the minds of the atheist. Life just goes on as it will: we’re born, we live, we die. That’s it.

In this scenario, is there any such thing as sin? To be sure, there is ‘crime’ which is merely a violation of law against a human for which we might be accountable before a human court. But there is no sin in the sense of a violation of God’s Holy Law, a transgression against the Holy One. “If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.” Or, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” So if there is no ultimate sin, then of what need is there for Redemption? And if there is no need for Redemption, of what need is there of Christ? Why, we might as well say Christ Jesus did not even exist if all that is true. And we might as well say that all that is in Scripture is untrue as well.

This seems highly, highly unlikely to be the case. This is part of the atheist’s dilemma. Who really knows what is right and wrong in the atheist’s system? Who will hold us accountable in the atheist’s system? (One another? OJ proves that notion is laughable.) How will justice be finally ‘worked out’ in the atheist’s system? Worse, where is grace in the atheist’s system? Where is life in the atheist’s system? Are we really to believe that death is the great equilizer?

jerry

Friends,

Darwinism is defunct, deadly, and dying.

Stunning Documentary Links Darwin, Hitler.

Charles Darwin should share with Adolph Hitler the blame for the 11 million or more lives lost in the Holocaust, a provocative video documentary explains. And, the program says, the more than 45 million American lives lost to abortion also can be blamed on that famous founder of evolutionary theory.”

This is just a bit. Click the link for more.

Also, see this amazing, 17 page pdf: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The copy I have linked to was updated in February 2007. The document lists the current position the scientist holds, and their academic credentials.

Also see: Dissent From Darwin.

You will be amazed at how many scientists question the Darwinian theory of evolution thus countering the commonly held belief and propaganda that all scientists with credentials believe in bunk theories like Darwinism.

Also see: Doctors Doubting Darwin.

Then there’s: Survival of the Fakest.

What all of this shows, at least in part, is that Darwinism is not as commonly accepted among the ‘intellectual elite’ (R Dawkins words) as we have been led to believe. One would think that Darwinism is such a lock that there would be no dissent from any scientist ever, that there would only be consensus. I think these documents point us in the direction where we can confidently say: That is not true!

Happily, there are plenty of rational people in the scientific world who understand what the real issues are in this battle. Happily, those of us who know how to think, who enjoy mystery because it gives us a reason to continue searching, and delight in the power of God, can truly see what Darwinism is at its roots: Life without God.

Have a blessed day, and if you see a Darwinist, or hear from a teacher that Darwin had all the answers, print the seventeen pages or give them a link. Don’t fear those who have no answers and thus must invent theories to explain what their small minds cannot grasp. Believe in the God of Creation.

jerry

Friends,

Turns out there were other similar episodes by Baylor University. Click Here.

It seems that even ‘historically Christian’ universities are not above fear. Seems that even Baylor University is getting in on the action against professor Bob Marks. In part:

“As many of you have heard, Marks, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering, has been conducting research that ultimately may challenge the foundation of Darwinian theory. In layman’s terms, Marks is using highly sophisticated mathematical and computational techniques to determine if there are limits to what natural selection can do,” he wrote. “At Baylor, a Christian institution, this should be pretty unremarkable stuff. I’m assuming most of the faculty, students and alumni believe in God, so wouldn’t it also be safe to assume you have no problem with a professor trying to scientifically quantify the limits of a blind, undirected cause of the origin and subsequent history of life?

“But the dirty little secret is university administrators are much more fearful of the Darwinian Machine than they are of you,” he said. [Emphasis mine]

“Here’s what’s going on: Somebody within the scientific community let [Baylor dean Ben] Kelley know that Marks was running a website that was friendly to intelligent design. Such a thing is completely unacceptable in today’s university system – even at a Christian institution. Kelley was probably told to have the site shut down immediately or suffer the consequences,” Ruloff said.

It’s a conspiracy! (Not.)

There’s also the story of Guillermo Gonzalez who was denied tenure at Iowa State University:

Gonzalez, who will be out of his job at ISU after the 2007-2008 year if the decision is not changed, was rejected by officials despite his publication of 68 peer-reviewed scientific articles, nearly four times what his own department suggests as a standard for “excellence.”

It’s a conspiracy! The opposition to Darwinism is paranoid! There is no suppression in the scientific community! It’s all a vast right wing conspiracy and the dead Jerry Falwell is leading the charge!

OK. Enough of that. On to other matters. You might not know it, but over the weekend, I guess, Atheists from around the country (or globe) got together for a worship service, Crystal Clear Atheism. The preachers included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others. They delivered stirring messages from their bibles (The God Delusion, etc.) and they fellowshiped together.

Said the article:

By contrast, Harris’s speech was a more tempered critique of the atheist movement itself. While Harris said he believed science must ultimately destroy religion, he also discussed spirituality and mysticism and called for a greater understanding of allegedly spiritual phenomena. He also cautioned the audience against lumping all religions together. [emphasis mine]

And why? Well, as Richard Dawkins:

But they are a proudly elitist and self-certain minority. When asked what the main difference between believers and atheists was, Dawkins had a quick answer: “Well, we’re bright.”

That certainly cinches it for me! So they are afraid of opposing views, they think they are ‘bright’, and they think that religion must be destroyed. Well, that makes for a great weekend doesn’t it? I really don’t know why I waste my time with this stuff. I guess I think it is funny that the things I’ve been saying keep proving to be true. Oh, sure, many people will deny that it is true and will spin it their way, but there it is. I’m reminded of something Jesus said one time. It’s a very simple phrase, but it packs a terrible punch to the confidence that atheists and evolutionists have in their ‘brilliance’:

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)

And Job said:

Then Job replied to the LORD : “I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.” (Job 42:1-2)

My thoughts? Give it your best shot you atheists, you Darwinists, you evolutionists. Go ahead and do what you will. You will never conquer Jesus Christ. His people you may hurt, his people you may scar, his people you may exterminate. But you cannot, you will not, thwart the plans of the Lord. The earth is His, and the fullness thereof. Good luck with that little enterprise, Mr Harris!

“If it is of men, it will surely fail. But if it is from God you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”–another atheist who tried to wipe out Christianity and failed.

Soli Deo Gloria!

jerry

Friends,

Albert Mohler has written a great post concerning how atheists deal with the Bible. He is responding (sort of) to an essay by Carlin Romano at the The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Mohler wrote:

Strange as it may seem, I think I like Christopher Hitchens’ approach better.  Hitchens at least understands what is at stake.  This really isn’t about etiquette.  Christians are to be kind and gracious, but the offense of the Gospel remains.  It is not considered polite to tell persons that they are sinners destined for hell.  Etiquette would demand that Christians abandon the claim that Jesus is the only Savior and that the Gospel is the only message that saves.  Such claims are, in our modern context, considered insufferably rude.

In this sense, Hitchens understands what he rejects.  It is clear that he has actually read the Bible, or at least much of it.  He does not believe in God, therefore he does not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired.  He sees the Bible as a hopelessly repressive book — a book to be opposed, not politely and dishonestly referred to as “sacred” just because Christians believe it to be so. 

At least we understand each other.  Both Hitchens and believing Christians understand the limits of etiquette.  The Bible demands obedience and belief, not insincere compliments. 

I agree with Mohler. The stakes aretoo high to be insincere. We must be bold, upfront, and honest. What is at stake here is the Word of God. This is no debate where we can mince words. I don’t see any reason for atheists to be ashamed of what they believe and consequences of their belief system. They should be proud! I don’t need them being nice to me because normally that niceness is mere condescension.

If you get the chance, read Mohler’s post. Romano’s post is a bit long and may need to be printed to be read fully.

Soli Deo Gloria!

jerry

Friends,

I have an apology to make, sort of, to evolutionists. For a long time I have been referring to them as Darwinists. I am sorry I have done so because I think I may have misled them into thinking that they have more credibility than they actually have. The entire idea of Darwinism is bunk. So, I am sorry for calling you Darwinists. From now on I shall refer to people who believe in evolution as Darloserists. I realize this movement will take some time to get underway, but I think it is time for rational, reasonable, thinking people to stop assuming that Darwinism has the dominant voice or the final voice on the origins of men and women or any life for that matter. I’m tired of Darloserists thinking they are the only ones whose voice matters when it comes to science, origins, and the way life ought to be perceived–or thinking that their voice matters at all. Consider what the Lord God said through Isaiah the Prophet:

For this is what the LORD says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
“I am the LORD,
and there is no other.

19 I have not spoken in secret,
from somewhere in a land of darkness;
I have not said to Jacob’s descendants,
‘Seek me in vain.’
I, the LORD, speak the truth;
I declare what is right.

20 “Gather together and come;
assemble, you fugitives from the nations.
Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood,
who pray to gods that cannot save.

21 Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the LORD
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.

22 “Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.

23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.

24 They will say of me, ‘In the LORD alone
are righteousness and strength.’ ”
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.

(Isaiah 45:18-24, NIV)

The only voice that matters is the Voice of God.  

I think it is high time that the Darloserists be exposed for what they really are: Mean-spirited egoists whose only ambition is to undermine the Word of Truth, that is, The Word of God. I think it is time that the cover come off their supposed quest for truth, which is masked by the blanket word ‘science,’ and expose it for what it is: Materialism, Humanism, Atheism, a world of anarchy without God or reference to Him or submission to His Son Jesus Christ. But this world belongs to the Father. I’m sick of my children being indoctrinated by preachers of Darloseranity. I’m sick of their religion being shoved down my throat every time they discover a new square centimeter of bone in some out of the way desert. I’m sick of their propagandists spewing out their dogmas and doctrines from their unassailable pulpits in universities, high schools, and elementary schools across the country and suppressing the voices of those who dissent. I’m tired of evolutionists assuming there is even a debate to be had!

I’m tired of their maniacal attacks on all things religious and especially all things Christian. I’m tired of their attempts to undermine the Word of God. I’m tired of their shallow logic that they believe is unquestionable because they possess a bone fragment or a, well, bone fragment. I’m tired of these elitists telling me that Jesus did not Resurrect from the dead and then telling me that life just ‘sprung up’ from nowhere. I’m tired of them telling people that the Bible is a 2,000 year old book we can’t trust but Darwin’s 200 year old book we can.  (Does that mean when Darwin’s book is 2,000 we can quit trusting in it??? We should have stopped trusting in it a long time ago!)

The Scripture says: In the Beginning God Created. There are no other options.

I think science has done many wonderful things for humanity. I am pleased they continue to make advances in such areas as Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare. I’m glad that scientists continue to do tests on animals to make certain that their products are safe for human consumption. I’m glad scientists are able to tell us all about the human genome but cannot tell us how to solve simple problems like hunger and thirst or death.  And thank God for the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project! Where would be without them!? And where would we be without safer abortions and euthanasia??

Yes, blessed science has done many wonderful things: Penicillin, computers and the internet (although Al Gore had a hand in that too!), homogenization, chocolate and much, much more. And for these we can be truly thankful that God has imparted wisdom to us. Still it is time to keep all this in perspective and get back to the truth that this world was created by God, for God, and because of God. It’s time that the Word of God be trumpeted across the Land and around the World. It’s time that Jesus was exalted and glorified and Darwin was humiliated and left to rot. It’s time that the Darloserists were revealed for what they really are: People who believe a lie so deeply they think it is the truth, people who are easily duped (see my post on Dawkins), people who can only argue that those who disagree just ‘don’t understand.’

Yes, yes, yes. There are some broad generalizations in here. Yes, yes, yes, there are some deceived Christians who believe Darloserism. Yes, yes, yes, science has done more than give us chocolate and plastic and post-it notes. It doesn’t change the fact that Darloserism is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on this planet by the father of lies. Every scientist in the world could announce today that they believe in Darloserism and they would be wrong. The Bible is the only Word of Truth concerning our origins and our ends.

We read in Scripture our great ‘theory of everything’, the beginning and the end, the reason for our existence and the reason for our continued safety:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” (Colossians 1:15-20, NIV)

Soli Deo Gloria!

jerry

Friends,

My anonymous friend at Adeistic has a link to this wonderful editorial by Mark Morford at the San Fransisco Gate. The editorial The Fall of the Godmongers: Praise Jesus it’s the Collapse of Evangelical Christian Rule in America: Rejoice! is really a fantastic essay. I particularly enjoyed this part:

And why? Because the fundamentalist mind-set is not so much a firm and rational set of beliefs based on thoughtful interpretation of strict Biblical screed as it is, well, a paranoid wallowing in fear. Fear of the Other, fear of change, of progress, of the new and different and young and the sexual and the truly spiritual. And as we all know from almost seven years of Bush, fear knows no reason. It knows no stability. Fear is simply insatiable, voracious, and about as un-Godlike as Jesus with a machine gun.

Now, aside from the fact that the essayist is really far too concerned about sexual politics and makes an ignorant quip about the death of Jerry Falwell, his essay actually makes some rather valid points. In part, I couldn’t agree more with that first sentence. I have been saying it over and over again here at this blog: Christians need to get back to the fundamental root of their existence: The Holy Scriptures. And yet we continue to drift further and further away…

I especially appreciate his take on the influence that evangelicals of mega-churches have had on the political decisions of this current presidential administration. In my opinion, one of the worst decisions was the whole Faith Based Initiatives plan: Waste of tax money! Another bad decision was installing a phone in the office of the president that was linked to Tedd Haggard’s throne in Colorado: Big Mistake. Still another, from the church’s direction, is entrusting politicians with the propagation of Christian faith: Can you say, “I need re-elected.” Another is thinking that Pat Robertson is infallible and that he and his cronies have the only valid ideas concerning Scripture. (I can tell you that he doesn’t.)

In my estimation, one of the worst things the Church can do is trust its work and its mission to government officials who will merely try to legislate morality. Morality can only be effected when people’s hearts are changed. Truly, there is very little doubt about the total depravity of man! The other poor choice we make is when politicians try to do the work that the church should be doing. The government has its divine authorization; the church has hers.

Finally, the author says this:

But when you come right down to it, the Great Truism has been validated once again: Righteous fundamentalism, be it Christian, Islamic, or otherwise, has the seeds of its own destruction built right into its very framework, a priori and de facto and by default. Powered by the deeply joyless engines of fear and shame, it can never quench its own impotent desires.

Again, I cannot help but agree whole-heartedly! So I propose a solution to the problem. I propose that Christians mind their own business and leave this country we live in to its own devices because the one problem I have with this essay is that the author is persuaded that he has no religious point of view. I say we should leave the USA to its own secular, humanist, materialist, sex-charged, socialist agenda. Christians should simply sit down, shut up, and never have an opinion. We should let the country be run by homosexuals and atheists and Darwinists (because they are separate from atheists) and liberals and abortionists and politicians and murderers and pedophiles and rapists and the like.

Because freedom is a great thing: “The Supreme Court, by way of just one example, has now been so front-loaded with righteous misogynists, we’ve already lost great hunks of women’s rights, environmental protections and many of the cornerstones of America’s moral foundation.” (Although, to be sure, the author cites no references to validate his assertions, which is strange because at the beginning of the essay he also asserted, “We’ve got urban smoking bans and Smart cars and women finally rising to the most powerful positions in the land.” So, I’m having trouble understanding how all these womens’ rights have been lost and yet women can also rise to the ‘most powerful positions in the land.’ I don’t think he has his fact straight on this, but that’s beside the point.) Let freedom ring!

I am also glad he criticized the mega-church movement because from my point view nothing has been more damaging to the Christian faith than the mega-church movement (especially the sorts associated with Osteen, Haggard, and their ilk.) I’m glad that Mr Morford is raising awareness of this dangerous trend towards such shallow easy believism.

In short, I’m grateful for Mr Morford’s essay. I hope more Christians will read it and give their approval. It is a dangerous thing when the church gets mixed up in politics because then politicians start expecting things in return. What belongs to Caesar should be kept by Caesar and what belongs to God should remain with God. The Church of Jesus Christ does not need the help of the government of the United States to accomplish its mission. The church has survived countless wars, countless rebellions, numerous attempts to eradicate it, numerous internal scandals, bad decisions, and scandals in its years of existence.

My only hope, for Mr Morford’s sake, is that the United States has the same wherewithal and the same courage and the same staying power as the Church. I hope the United States can survive the legalized infanticide; I hope the United States can survive the normalization of homosexuality; I hope the United States can survive a war fought with a woman as the Commander in Chief; I hope the United States can survive the ramifications of taking God out of every nook and cranny and replacing Him with empty Darwinism; I hope the United States can survive the blasphemies and scandals of our politicians; I hope the United States can survive the hubris of people who don’t understand Genesis 18:16-33; I hope the United States can survive a thoroughly godless culture filled with murder, rape, pornography, pedophilia, racial strife, hypocrisy, violence, hatred, anger, suicide and meaninglessness.

Yes, Mr Morford! Praise Jesus! The church will survive, thrive, and outlast all this. I wonder if the United States will?

prayerfully,

jerry

PS–But what does it matter as long as none of smoke, as long as none of contribute to global warming by driving big cars, and as long as George Bush is not the president? I can’t wait until Hilary is elected. I can’t wait until she has to face the pressure daily of that job. I can’t wait to see how long it will be before she starts asking evangelical Christians to pray for her as she goes about the business of decided which men and women she will sacrifice to keep the rest of us safe. Yes, I agree Mr Morford, Evangelical Christians should be thoroughly, totally, completely stripped of all influence in this nation. Go Secular humanism! Go materialism! Go liberalism! Go Darwinism! Go Atheism! What a great place to live!

Friends,

I’m following Joe’s advice and not painting all atheists with the same brush. Normally, at least as far as Richard Dawkins and others are concerned, atheists are the ones who are being persecuted by the religious. They call on atheists to stand up for their atheist rights. They denounce mostly Christians as being dupes or haters or something less than creatures made in the image of the Holy God. Well, here’s a story (a story I’m posting as a general picture of some atheists and not a specific story of all atheists) for you to check out and comment on: Atheists Blast Creationists in Copyright Battle. 

I think I might comment a little more on this later, but for now I’m just putting a link up so that no one thinks I am accusing all atheists of being evolutionists who hate Christians. Only some of them are. I don’t know why atheists are so concerned that Christians believe in something beyond themselves. My friend Jeff said in one of his posts that if Christians would just keep their views to themselves there would be no real problems. I can say the same thing here: Why can’t atheists and evolutionists keep their Damned (n the religious sense) religious views out of the schools, out of politics, and out of the way? Why don’t they just leave Christians and other religious folks in peace? Why must they be so evangelistic and hateful–not all of them, but a significant portion of them? I wish atheists would quit cramming their religious views down everyone’s throats. Gee Wally, they are more evangelistic than most Christians!

Why do atheists think they have a monopoly on rational beliefs? Why do evolutionists think they have the only voice on origins? Don’t bother answering those questions. I’m not defending CSEM or Hovind. I’m simply pointing out that not all atheists should be colored with the same crayon.

jerry