Faith, Beer, and Other Things That Interest Geoff

Great Comment About Eastern Orthodox Arguments

Going back the Oriental Orthodox, in Evangelical/Orthodox debates this tradition is generally ignored because Evangelicals are ordinarily opposed to Monophysitism, and so the Oriental Orthodox are summarily excluded.

But this is misleading, and gives the Eastern Orthodox an unfair advantage. And that’s because Evangelicals don’t necessarily oppose Monophysitism for same reasons as the Eastern Orthodox. We oppose it because it’s unscriptural.

But the Eastern Orthodox oppose it because it’s contra-conciliar. And that, in turn, is bound up with a high-church polity and apostolic succession.

Yet if you grant high-church assumptions, then the Oriental Orthodox have just as good or poor a claim to apostolic succession as the Eastern Orthodox. So we shouldn’t be giving the Eastern Orthodox a free pass on this issue. They need to fight and win on more than one front. They need to beat the Oriental Orthodox at their own game before they’re in any position to mount an attack on Evangelicalism, or some particular tradition thereof.

They also need to explain who speaks for Eastern Orthodox, and why.

Labels: apologetics, eastern orthodoxy

For All of You Who Think Intelligent Design is Based Solely in Christian Fundamentalism Read This

I guess those Ancient Greek philosophers were under the influence of fundamental Christian dogma.

Labels: ID, philosophy

Star Wars is 30 Years Old

Happy Birthday Star Wars! You're making me feel old.

Labels: star wars

How I Would Solve the Illegal Immigration Problem

Require companies to verify Social Security numbers as legitimate and see how that would change the dynamic.

Labels: illegal immigration

Urgent Prayer Need for Pakistani Christians

Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”, Christian Today has learned.

Dems Push for Fairness Doctrine

My friend Hwang thought those of us who oppose hate crimes legislation did so out of racist motivation. I said that it was because I fear those laws would eventually be used to squelch dissent and free speech.

It is things like the article I linked to above which keep stoking this suspicion.

Labels: free speech, liberalism

Creating an Army out of a Nation of Weaklings

One Soldier's View: Why Congress Should Embrace the Surge

Very interesting article. In the New York Times.

WHEN the civilian hierarchy fails them, soldiers tend to seek solace in Clausewitz’s observation that war is an extension of politics. But in 2005 and 2006 the reverse was true in Iraq: the battle churned in place, steadily eroding the administration’s credibility and America’s psyche, while most politicians stood on the sidelines, content to hurl insults at one another until the battlefield offered a clear political course.

What was most remarkable, however, was the military’s inability to grab the reins and articulate a realistic war plan for Iraq. At home, recruiting, supply and deployment crises were solved; but in Iraq the generals continued to offer assessments of the fight that were as obviously inaccurate as those trumpeted by the politicians. The goal was to put Iraqi forces in the lead, but as a consequence, large-scale battlefield adaptation was scarce.

Today the civil-military relationship has righted itself, yet soldiers like me who believe that Iraq can be stabilized face a bitter irony. On one hand, the military is finally making meaningful adjustments to the complex fight. On the other, the politicians are finally asserting themselves. The tragedy is that the two groups are going in opposite directions.

Labels: iraq

Abortion and Down Syndrome

About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.

Convinced that more couples would choose to continue their pregnancies if they better appreciated what it meant to raise a child with Down syndrome, a growing group of parents are seeking to insert their own positive perspectives into a decision often dominated by daunting medical statistics and doctors who feel obligated to describe the difficulties of life with a disabled child.

No one wants their baby to have Down syndrome. But this is what selfishness looks like.

Labels: abortion

France Dumps Socialists

Congratulations to France. This is the best thing I've heard about France in quite some time.

French Socialists are looking for scapegoats. How about socialism?

This blurb sums it up perfectly:

”The left is not credible on so many issues, from the 35-hour working week to immigration and law and order,” says Dominique Reynié, professor at Sciences Po university.

“It is the fault of the left collectively. Ever since their [parliamentary election] defeat in 1983 they have never questioned their fundamental ideology, only thinking they needed to change tactics,” he says.

Labels: france, socialism

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer

I ran across a video created by some atheists meant to challenge Christians. As the title suggests, it poses 10 questions which they feel are difficult for a Christian to answer.

I decided to give it a go and post answers to each of their questions. I'm going to try and do this in short order, while, at the same time, not rushing.

The transcript and the video is at the post linked above. I recommend following the link and going through their video. I'm going by the transcript, so if the transcript is in error please forgive me.

Besides introducing the topic, I would like to go over some things which permeate more than one question.

1) Atheists have no basis to make moral objections unless they are trying to point out inconsistencies within the Christian faith. "God doesn't exist because bad things happen." Morality require purpose and meaning. And not a "I give life my own purpose" squishy purpose. I mean real purpose. Ultimate purpose and meaning. Atheism can't give you that. But atheists cling to this theistic-dependent idea very strongly.

The whole title is inconsistent with atheism. Ten questions a Christian "must answer". Why must I answer them? What universal principle compels me that I ought to answer them. "Ought" or "must" cannot be in a logically consistent atheist's vocabulary.

2) Stop poisoning the well. "So you create some kind of rationalization to explain these verses." So if I don't respond, I concede the point. If I respond, I'm rationalizing.

Now, as seen above in my first point, I make the claim that an atheist can't have any objective morality and be consistent with their atheism. So I'm not hypocritical, let me say, prove me wrong. Give me a basis which is consistent with atheism. I'm extremely sure you can't, but give it a go.

3) Scripture verses are taken out of context or out of the entire scope of Scripture.

Hopefully, I'll respond in short order. Many of the questions I've run into before. The first one was actually a pretty good question and deserved a little bit of research. I'm actually going to make the problem a little harder for the intelligent Christian.

I will have one post for each question except for question 5, which I will devote two posts to.

(Note: this link will give you a page with all the posts responding to the video.)

Lastly, the video.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 1: Why won't God heal amputees?

Well, the video's first question is its best question.

So here is question #1: Why won't God heal amputees?

It's a simple question, isn't it? We all know that amputated legs do not spontaneously regenerate in response to prayer. Amputees get no miracles from God.

If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that it's an interesting question On the one hand, you believe that God answers prayers and performs miracles. On the other hand, you know that God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles.

How do you deal with this discrepancy? As an intelligent person, you have to deal with it, because it makes no sense. In order to handle it, notice that you have to create some kind of rationalization. You have to invent an excuse on God's behalf to explain this strange fact of life. You might say, "well, God must have some kind of special plan for amputees." So you invent your excuse, whatever it is, and then you stop thinking about it because it is uncomfortable.

In the entire scope of redemptive history, miracles are very rare.

I'm not talking about extraordinary things which happen through Divine Providence. Examples of this use of the word "miracle" would be something like God arranging a bunch of naturally occurring things to, for instance, get the British troops out of Dunkirk. Or having a really cold winter to stymie the Nazi forces in the Soviet Union. Or cancer that goes away. I wouldn't classify those as miracles, even when they occur by God's decree. No, a miracle would be, and I'm using imprecise philosophical language, events caused by God where he sets aside the normal laws of nature. The Resurrection of Jesus would be one such example. Healing a person born blind would be another.

Miracles, of the type I just defined and described, are rare, even in the Bible. If Abraham is somewhere around 1600 BC and the New Testament is done by about 70-100 AD, we do not see that many miracles relative to the amount of time. The Bible is not a 24-hour news channel, reporting "news" even when there isn't news. The Bible is only highlighting things for our own edification.

And in the Bible we still see something else. In my reckoning, and correct me if I'm wrong, there are bursts of miraculous activity. The main eras of miracles are 1) Moses 2) Elijah 3) Jesus.

Miracles seem to occur to mark new eras in redemptive history, affirming the message for the people of God of new revelation. But as Jesus said, "a wicked and adulterous generation seek a sign." Jesus didn't heal everyone he met. He didn't perform miracles until the wedding at Cana, which was toward the beginning of his ministry.

For that reason, I don't expect to see many miracles today. John MacArthur has a pretty good summary of what I've inadequately tried to express here. I'm not sure if I'd go as far as to say there is no possibility of miracles today, but I wouldn't expect them.

To make it harder on myself, I would like to say that there are some passages which a surface reading suggests that we can get anything we want out of prayer if we have enough faith. God is not at our beckon call. He is a holy Lord whose ways are above our ways. He is not a cosmic bellhop. But I suggest reading this and this and this if interested in how to interpret those verses in context of the overall Bible, of those particular sections of Scripture, and of the Jewish culture of the day.

I don't mean to be flippant about any of these answers. I consulted with a dear brother in the faith who is born with birth defects and has suffered much medically over the last year. But his suffering has not been meaningless. It has been to God's glory.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 2: Why are there so many starving people in this world?

From the transcript:

Look out at our world and notice that millions of children are dying of starvation. It really is horrific. Why would God be worried about you getting a raise, while at the same time ignoring the prayers of these desperate, innocent little children? It really doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving god do this?

To explain it, you have to come up with some sort of very strange excuse for God. Like, "God wants these children to suffer and die for some divine, mysterious reason." Then you push it out of your mind because it absolutely does not fit with your view of a loving, caring God.

Much of the evangelical world has related a message about a God which differs from the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is a consuming fire. The God of the Bible is holy and cannot tolerate sin.

With that in mind, there is a fundamental problem with this objection. "Desparate, innocent little children." Tugs at the heart strings, but there are no innocent little children. The question contains a false premise.

"There is none who does good." Psalm 14:1 "No one is good but God alone." Mark 10:18 "If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?" Psalm 130:3

The real problem is not the problem of evil. It is the problem of good. Why would God allow anything good to happen to rank sinners like us?

When we understand God's holiness and our sin (everyone-each and every one of us), questions about innocent people suffering go away. The suffering in the world is indeed horrific. And there is a sense in us which tells us this isn't the way it should be. If tells us something is wrong, horribly wrong.

When you are driving, do you want the dashboard to tell you when you are running out of gas? Likewise, suffering alerts us that something is amiss.

If an atheist is sensing the problem, they are sensing some truth that runs contrary to atheism. Objective right and wrong cannot co-exist with atheism.

But while I can't give an explanation about each, specific case of suffering, I can say the problem this question raises should be on its head. We should be utterly confounded that anything good happens to us at all given our rebellion towards the Creater who made and formed us.

God does not owe us anything.

For further reading: here is an article I wrote about the problem.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 3: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

As I answered in the previous question, which innocent people is the questioner referring to?

From the transcript:

Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Look up these verses:

- Exodus 35:2 – God demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.

- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – God demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.

- Leviticus 20:13 – God demands the death of homosexuals.

- Deuteronomy 22:13-21 – God demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry.

And so on… There are lots of verses like these.

It doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving God want us to murder our fellow human beings over such trivial matters? Just because you work on the wrong day of the week, you must die? That makes no sense, does it? In fact, if you think about it, you realize that it is insane. So you create some kind of rationalization to explain these verses.

So, why doesn't this make sense?

God gives commands and we break them in our rebellion. This is deserving of death. Spiritual death and physical death.

The Sabbath was an integral part of God's covenant through Moses. To break it was to reject God. Rebellious teenagers? Your parents gave you life and care for you. To rebel against your parents is heinous. Young women who lie about their virginity are deceivers and fornicators.

We should stop and think. God's commandments should help us realize the nature of our rebellion and sin. They help us realize that our rebellion is not a "trivial matter."

If God gives you life and sustains your existence, what do we owe Him? Answer: everything. If the heinousness of rebelling against a parent makes no sense, it makes sense that rebellion towards God isn't understood as well.

Let me ask the anonymous atheist questioner. On what objective basis do you declare that these transgressions of God's commandments are "trivial"? Your own subjective feelings? Is your answer consistent with your atheism? How can you have moral laws without an objective law giver?

"That makes no sense, does it?"

If it makes no sense to you, I would suggest that you don't understand the holiness of God nor the sinfulness of sin. Meditate on God's law day and night.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

You mean nonsense like there was a beginning to the universe, when most prior to the discovery of the Big Bang believed in an eternal universe? Or how about "God stretched out the heavens"? Reminds me of Edwin Hubble.

From the transcript:

You have a college degree, so you know what I'm talking about. You know how science works. You happily use the products of science every day: your car, your cell phone, your microwave oven, your TV, your computer. These are all products of the scientific process. You know that science is incredibly important to our economy and to our lives.

Are you aware how much of science relies on theism?

It is no accident that science flourished in the monotheistic West.

Why don't the laws of nature change? As a Christian, I can easily tell you. They are God's laws. He sustains the universe.

An atheist has no basis for that belief. The laws of the past will be like the future because...? There is no foundation for those laws under atheism.

From the transcript:

But there is a problem. As an educated person you know that the Bible contains all sorts of information that is total nonsense from a scientific perspective.

- God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.

- There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.

I'm an Old Earth Creationist and I believe there are good, textual reasons (as well as scientific) for holding such a view. I'll let Young Earth Creationists defend their own positions. I would recommend Reasons to Believe, an Old Earth Creationist ministry, for tackling these examples.

The video goes on:

- Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.

- God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.

Now, I have to part company here. Your views of what is possible here is colored by your lack of belief. If God exists, why can't He prepare a big fish for Jonah? Why can't He create Adam out of the dust of the earth? Now, in the last example Scripture doesn't seem to be using precise scientific language.

But the problem seems to be anti-supernatural presuppositions, not any sort of theoretical impossibility about the two events.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 5, Part I: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?

From the transcript:

Look up these Bible verses:

- Exodus 21:20-21 – God says that it is OK to own slaves, and it is also OK to beat them.

I'm breaking this question into two posts because the use of this Scripture particularly disturbed me.

Let's read the passage:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Looks pretty bad, right? It is OK to beat your own slave?

Let's look at the commandment immediately preceding this section:

When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.

Ok, so if someone kills their own slave and kills them, they will be punished. Not any differently than if you killed a freeman, since there is nothing in the passage which says there is different criteria for punishment. I'm no Ancient Near East expert, but I would suspect punishment for killing a slave wasn't a common practice. To me, this commandment is evidence that the Bible isn't the product of human imagination.

But does the first passage I quoted really say it is alright to beat your slave? Let's look at the two passages in parallel.

In Exodus 21:18-19, the passage tells us that if you injure someone you need to pay them for their lost wages. We can see from the juxtaposition of the two commandments that Exodus 21:20-21 is telling us that an owner doesn't have to pay lost wages because he owns the slave. He would have to pay himself! He has already caused his own economic loss.

So now the command in Exodus 21:20 is even more striking. Exodus 21:18-19 says nothing about avenging the death or manslaughter of a man, but those cases are handled elsewhere in Scripture.

God is underscoring equal protection under the law for slaves. Their lives must be avenged.

And given the juxtaposition between the two commands, it is wrong to injure a freeman who loses his wages. The flow shows that is wrong to hurt your own slave. Otherwise, why explicitly mention that you don't need to reimburse lost wages since you are the person who owns the slave? The commandment presupposes it is wrong to hurt slaves.

As you can see from this post, when skeptics throw individual Bible verses isolated from the rest of Scripture (and especially when they are isolated from surrounding context), don't panic.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 5, Part II: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?

Let's continue answering this question by looking at the transcript:

- Colossians 3:22-24 – Slaves need to obey their masters.

- Ephesians 6:5 – Slaves need to obey their masters just as they would obey Christ.

- 1 Peter 2:18 – Slaves need to obey their masters, even if their masters are harsh.

And so on…

And why do all intelligent people abhor slavery and make it completely illegal? You have to come up with some kind of weird rationalization to explain it.

Let me answer the last question in this quotation. Why do all intelligent people abhor slavery and make it completely illegal? Because of the influence of Christianity. What was the faith of William Wilberforce, the man who struggled for many years to outlaw the slave trade in the British empire? He was a devout Christian.

Is there anything about atheistic beliefs which would make me want to abolish slavery? Survival of the fittest. Stinks for them. We are all just matter in motion. Why should I care that a bunch of atoms called "owners" own a bunch of different atoms called "slaves"?

Now, let's look at the Bible verses they didn't quote.

22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.

1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

Colossians 3:22-4:1

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Ephesians 6:5-9

The command of slaves obeying masters is complemented by masters treating their slaves lovingly.

The makers of this video also omitted another important verse.

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. Exodus 21:16

When we see passages which tell slaves to obey their masters, we must keep some things in mind. The point of Christianity was not political. It was not to come in and completely change social institutions. The point was to proclaim God's salvation to everyone and to create a body of believers wherein both slaves and slave-owners would be equal.

The point of Christianity is to escape the wrath of God and to live a new life devoted to God and to spread that news throughout the whole world. Christians had bigger fish to fry than to overthrow all societal institutions. Christians were concerned about both slave and free, Jew and Gentile, male and female.

We live in a world where "intelligent people abhor slavery" because of a faith where the dignity of all men is upheld.

For further reading on the topic of slavery go here or here.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 6: Why do bad things happen to good people?

From the transcript:

That makes no sense. You have created an exotic excuse on God's behalf to rationalize it.

No sense? There is no possibility that an infinite God may have purposes completely beyond you? This lack of intellectual humility may be why it makes no sense to you.

But, I know this has been an answer to a previous question, but it applies here as well. Which good people are you referring to?

For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:9b-20

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?

Incorrect premise. Jesus' miracles left behind eyewitness testimony. This book which shows evidence for eyewitness testimony within the New Testament is getting rave reviews.

How about the evidence for the Resurrection?

Non-Christian Jewish traditions and pagan sources recognized that Jesus worked miracles.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?

From the transcript:

Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy.

Discrepancy? It is a discrepancy with your own premises of what should happen. Jesus never promised to show up on my beckon call once He ascended into heaven. He did send the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin and righteousness. He is in heaven to intercede for us before the Father.

Jesus' intercession for us as our High Priest is of such great import, I feel troubled glossing it over but I highly recommend studying this issue on your own.

He is our High Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek. (Psalm 110:4)

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 9: Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

From the transcript:

It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?

I'm not a Roman Catholic. This question assumes all "intelligent Christians" believe in the literal, earthly presence of Jesus' blood and flesh.

Since there wasn't much to respond to on this question let me quote something from later on in the transcript:

Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? Because God is imaginary, and this bizarre ritual came from a pagan religion.

Actually, this "bizarre ritual" is derived from the Jewish Passover seder.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Question 10: Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

Because a) many people who claim to be Christians aren't believers who have been renewed by the Spirit of God. b) Christians are sinners, like everyone else. c) A lot of breakups in the non-Christian world come outside of the context of marriage.

From the transcript:

Christians get married in front of God and their Christian friends, all of whom are praying to God for the marriage to succeed. And then they say, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." God is all-powerful, so if God has put two people together that should seal the deal, right? Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization.

Is my above rationale convoluted?

God has put the two together. A married couple is together in a very real sense. That is why divorce is a sin.

Maybe the video is trying to say that God should prevent people from sinning in this way so the bond of marriage isn't violated. But non-Christian marriage has that bond before God as well.

God allows sin. God sometimes allows consequences of our sin to befall us. God sometimes allows the consequences of others' sin to befall us.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Odds and Ends

In this post, I want to tackle some comments from the summary portion of the video.

From the transcript:

Our world only makes sense when we understand that God is imaginary.

Actually the complete opposite is true.

1) Morality. This video utilizes morality and as we explained previously morality presupposes meaning and purpose, which are absent if we are going to be consistent with our atheism. Furthermore, moral laws without an objective law-giver isn't going to fly. In atheism, you are left with different configurations of atoms bouncing around. That is not an objective basis for morality.

2) Why do the laws of nature stay the same? A Christian can make perfect sense of this. God established the laws of nature and sustains them. Atheists have no foundation for the laws of nature. They are hanging in mid-air, so to speak. And there is no reason for an atheist to believe they will remain the same one second, one month, or one million years from now.

3) The laws of logic. If you are a materialist, how can you use the laws of logic? They are immaterial. The law of non-contradiction is not orbiting around Jupiter.

4) Universals. We utilize non-material concepts all the time. They are crucial to rationality.

5) Reason and rationality. As an atheist, you believe that all our thoughts are physical and chemical reactions with our brain. Furthermore, you do not believe we were designed or created, by either direct or indirect means, for any ultimate purpose. According to atheism, you do not believe in atheism because it is true. Actually, you do not believe in anything because it is true. You believe what you believe because the atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way. If believing false things gave us an evolutionary advantage, we would believe false things. There is no way of knowing whether anything we believe is true or not if we are to be consistent with atheism.

Now, let me ask you one last question: why should you care? What difference does it make if people want to believe in a "god", even if he is imaginary?

It matters because people who believe in imaginary beings are delusional.

It matters because people who talk to imaginary beings are delusional.

It matters because people who believe in imaginary superstitions like prayer are delusional.

It's that simple, and that obvious. Your religious beliefs hurt you personally and hurt us as a species because they are delusional. The belief in any "god" is complete nonsense.

According to atheism, why does this matter? Why are there questions we "must answer"? Where does this moral imperative come from?

Atheism has left us devoid of any ultimate purpose. Who cares if someone believes something delusional? Why does it matter that people believe in superstitions? Why should anyone care about hurt to oneself or to the species? Atheism gives us no reason to care.

I have one last question of my own for my atheist friends. As I have demonstrated in this post, why can't you live and think consistently with your own atheism? If I may borrow wording from the 10 Questions video, is it because you in your heart of hearts have knowledge of God? Does belief in atheism come from another source besides rational thinking? Does it perhaps come from your desire to live free from the constraints if God does indeed exist? Did God not answer a prayer of yours and are you angry at Him?

Do not create some "convoluted rationalization" in order to escape the existence of God. Do not reject the God of the Bible because He is not like the God of your pre-conceived notions.

Labels: 10 questions

10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer, Wrapup

I invite feedback, but I wanted to make everyone aware that I will be changing the datestamp on all the posts. (Edit: all the timestamps have been changed.)

Since you can access all the posts in this series through the blogger label here I wanted someone to be able to read the thread in chronological order. The only means of doing that, that I know of, is to change the timestamps of the posts.

I hope everyone finds/found this series of post useful, or at least interesting.

I found the reviewing Scriptures regarding slavery to be most rewarding and edifying.

Labels: 10 questions

Wanted: Two Nuclear Reactors.

Good to see the world media is on top of everything.

Another instance of what "stop before I say 'stop' again" gets you.

Among the surreal events becoming ever more frequent in the nuclear showdown with Iran was the appearance of an ad last week in the International Herald Tribune, inviting bids to build "Two Large Scale Nuclear Power Plants in Iran."

The ad ran in all editions of the paper, which is owned by the New York Times, and reaches more than 240,000 readers in more than 180 countries. Somehow this outrageous solicitation escaped the notice of major world media. That's remarkable, at a time when Iran has been flagrantly defying United Nations Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to halt its nuclear bomb program - with both the U.N. and U.S. Treasury calling for a freeze on the assets worldwide of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, on behalf of which the ad was placed.

The ad did get noticed in Israel, a country that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he would like to see wiped off the map. Bloggers picked up the story, and a scanned version of the ad began circulating, with commentary, on the Internet. It smacked of Iranian nose-thumbing so extreme one had to wonder if it was a spoof.

It's no joke. The ad, which reads like something out of a Graham Greene novel, includes an e-mail address for a "Mr. Esmaeili," the address of Iran's Permanent Mission to the U.N. in Vienna, and a bank-account number at Austria Bank-Creditanstalt, complete with SWIFT code, for interested bidders to pay a nonrefundable fee for a set of bidding specifications.

Labels: iran

Former Governor Jim McGreevey to Become Episcopal Priest

There is nothing insightful I can say. I'm sure the Nigerian Anglicans are going to be thrilled.

The Vindication of Rick Santorum: Legal Incest May Be On Its Way

Indirectly through Physics Geek Jesus Freak.

I love Matt's blog's name.

For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured.

Hebrews 13:11-13

Tanker Explodes, Damaging San Francisco's Bay Bridge

A tanker explosion is so hot it melts metal. A person on the radio today had an excellent point. What do the 9/11 conspiracists think of this event?

Labels: 9/11