Why I Became an Atheist: A Satire

I was a Christian all my life, until one day I just got sick and tired of hating everyone, mocking anti-theists, complaining about religious-nones, harassing infidels, burning the Communist Manifesto, banning the Humanist Manifesto, arresting and torturing non-believers, burning down houses and killing the people whose families don't go to church, crucifying atheists, etc. Now that I'm an atheist, I feel so much more happy. My life is filled with peace and love.

 All the time, I thought that Marx, Pol Pot and Mao were bad guys, I couldn't have been more wrong! It was all propaganda! That's right! It turns out that Catholic and Lutheran priests secretly stripped off their neck bands, dyed them in the blood of atheists and tied them around their arms and so began the slaughter of atheists. I already knew that though, because I was one of them. I studied Christian Apologetics at Bob Jones University. It was actually while on my mission that I was finally confronted by the evidence for atheism and once and for all confronted about my hideous beliefs.

You see, only a half-baked kook, that's drank the kool-aid for way too long would ever believe that some "one" is required to create some "thing."  It's completely irrational to believe that a miracle could possibly ever have happened, just because you thought you saw one. All the good things Christians do, while their not killing people is just to go to heaven. I know it's hard to believe, even after they have sent atheists to work camps, but they really aren't good at heart, it's all just a good show, trying to to climb the stairway to heaven and all.

 Atheism is true because Richard Dawkins says it is, and if you need more proof, almost half of the scientists in the world are also atheists. It's practically a scientific consensus! None of the other scientists are really legit, otherwise they would be atheists too. So, you see, atheism is true and Christian so-called intellectuals, scientists and philosophers, are not really very smart. If they were, they would be atheists, because atheism is true. How do I know atheism is true? Because atheists say so! Look, you don't need miracles to explain the universe, all you need is an atheist! I can't put a miracle in a test tube, but I have put atheists on a burning stake. Trust me, atheism is true, Christians are mean, don't be a Christian, be an atheist! You're genes will like you if you do!




Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues (Google). The above is a satire I wrote while reading some comments on a YouTube video of former atheist and police detective, Jim Wallace, sharing his testimony. All of the atrocities listed above, were actually committed against Christians for their faith. Christians do not need to be afraid or discouraged in the face of ridicule and contempt, we just need to let our roots grow deep in God's grace and stand firm in the faith once delivered to all the saints. The man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument. We do not love others because they have first loved us. We are followers of Christ and the way of Christ, and we have been touched by his grace!

Brief Thoughts on Evil, Religion, Atheism, War and Adolf Hitler

Ironically, I titled this article, Brief after I wrote it, because I know that as long as it is, it doesn't do justice to the subject at hand. I only hope to sow some seeds for thought and hopefully inspire more courtesy in this weighty discussion. Note: I am not a historian, but neither am I unread. :)

Human dignity only truly exists if God created man in his image (1); this includes the capacity for logical thinking, knowledge, morality, justice, etc. In the modernity of the west, to deny that God exists generally leads to naturalism and materialism, as facilitated by methodological natural evolution. I do understand that situation would have it, that more and more atheists are wanting to walk away from such committed relationships, but shall we not let that dog lie for a bit?

Suffice it to say, if you are a critical thinker as well as a natural materialist that prescribes to evolution, then you would understand that man is no more special than a gnat or a flea (to do otherwise would suggest special pleading), and you would also recognize religion as the product of social Darwinism. That means it is neither good nor evil, it just is. Such terms as "good" and _"evil"_are completely erroneous and totally subjective.

Furthermore, you should also understand that the moral framework that society appeals to is actually derived from religion. To claim that religion inspires or exploits hate is an extremely near-sided view that fails critical analysis in many respects, including recognizing its moral influence on civilization. Like it or not, religion is here to stay. We are spiritual people. Whether that is because God created us or an accident of evolution, I'll let you decide. Let's just talk practically for a few minutes.

That doesn't mean beliefs don't have consequences, nor does it suggest that the truth or falsehood of those beliefs don't have consequences. I would be surprised if someone did not think the world would be a better place if more people were to integrate the teachings of Jesus into their lives, but that's besides the point.

So, within the paradigm of naturalism and materialism, when looking at military conflicts, you first must examine the factor of ideology as a whole and that means putting aside all prejudices, including religious prejudices. Many of the motivations can be tricky, and as the Bible says, only god knows the heart. Then you must diagnose the psychological factors and how they relate to their environment. (And then at the end of the day, the same plea can be used that the Nazis attempted to use in court, that they were simply acting out evolution.). What happens is, through methodological naturalism, science reduces morality and justice to a matter of statistics. Now, if science were able to reduce and refine everything that it means to be human, as a matter of statistics, would that make God obsolete as a Necessary Being? Of course not, then statistics would be meaningless. It is God that holds everything together. Statistics is not a means to a universal theory of knowledge. (see my article, Gödel, Science and God).

Before I stray completely off topic, what exactly was the ideology of the Communists but dialectical materialism! This is not only primarily based on atheism, it is actually inherently hostile toward anyone who believes in God! What triggered China to literally crucify Christians on crosses in the East? Exactly what motivated the burning of Bibles, the imprisonment of pastors across communist Europe and the murder of millions? Now, one can argue that atheism is generic in its rudimentary form and that the name shouldn't be inherently associated with the ideology of Stalin, Lennon, Pol Pot, Mao, et al., but to suggest that religion is the basis for all, or even almost all, human conflict, and that atheism was not a factor, simply because atheists don't want it to be defined as a belief or philosophical position, is either absurdly naive or patently disingenuous. I call that special pleading.

Just who did Hitler think he was?

Hitler attempted the same paradigm shift that took place in Rome and later in Ireland, as the Gospel began to take root. For example, Christmas was changed to the celebration of Germany and the Nazi ideal. Taking on the name, Positive Christianity, Hitler assumed the role of the messiah and tried to start his own personality cult.

He actually banned Christian meetings, Christian schools, Christian radio broadcasts, the printing of Bibles and even had them burned. It is claimed that he was in good standing with the Catholic Church even though he sentenced priests by the thousands to one of his concentration camps. Meanwhile members of both the Catholic Church as well as the Confessing Church of Dietrich Bonhoeffer were independently plotting against Hitler's life. Now, if that's what "good standing" means, I'm not so sure anyone would want to be considered to be in "good standing."

My point for pointing out Hitler is because he is the classic case example of the fact that there is always more going on than what meets the eye. On one hand, Hitler made several references to God in his public addresses, while on the other hand expressing his disdain for Christianity in private. He also made numerous comments in Mein Kampf in regard to Darwin's social conflict over territory and survival. Mein Kampf actually translates to "My Struggle" in English. Perhaps Hitler's various reference to God weren't just made out of political expediency. Maybe he really did believe in some form of a God, but whatever it was, it certainly wasn't anything like the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This "struggle", that Hitler repeatedly spoke of, is what historians consider to be the single most defining issue behind the wars of yesteryear. The long territorial war over Israel in the middle east is nothing new. It has been only more recently that matters of ideology have become such a forefront issue of conflict; there was the Catholic/protestant conflict, the American and French revolutions, abolition of slavery, Marx's Communist Manifesto, etc. The bottom line, for all of the motivations behind wars, pro-religious motivations certainly is not at the top. And, for all the ideological wars, more were initiated from a natural material worldview than religious ones.

What about all this evil?

I would like to comment on the above by pointing out that many atheists are very very angry! I mean red hot angry! They're angry at Hitler and the Nazis, they're angry at the Jews, the Whites and the Blacks. And if the narcissists on Internet chat rooms are any indication, they've never been so angry at Christians then they have as of late, regarding the culture war. There are even some atheists that abandoned their once held belief in God because they are angry at God for allowing acts of evil. It's difficult to know what came first the anger or the disbelief.

Just hold it a minute, for atheists to become so angry about Hitler, leads one to recognize that the presence of evil is very real, including to atheists. And, even though they have no idea what to do with such a category, as they have yet to offer a serious foundation for defining evil, it is just not going away. Perhaps this was brought on recently by the culture wars in connection with homosexual rights and the sexual liberation movement, but that's another story.

My point here is, As human beings, even for the atheist, it becomes clear that it is impossible for us to keep from defining the actions of Adolf Hitler as evil. But by doing so, we must confront the fact that we are moral human beings and our sense of morality precedes our existence. In other words, Sarte is wrong, we do not get to define our selves. Try as we might, morality and justice is part of being human, it is just a brute fact. I'm not going to argue whether or not it is possible for someone to contrive a possible means of a moral sense by way of evolution, what I am arguing is that either God is real and there is a moral law Giver or the whole thing is nothing but an illusion. More can be said about this, but for now, let me just offer some food for thought from the quotable C.S. Lewis:

"Conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver." 

Wikipedia attributes the following moral argument to W. R. Sorley.

1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
2. Morality is objective and absolute.
3. Therefore, God must exist



Footnotes:


For information on the Moral Argument, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/ 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality


1. Although I was not inferring an argument from dignity for the existence of God in the above, I still think it is worth sharing this interesting argument. It can be found on Standford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The entry is by C. Stephen Evans. The argument from human dignity is based on the work of Immanuel Kant and can be put into propositional form as follows:

1. Human persons have a special kind of intrinsic value that we call dignity.
2. The only (or best) explanation of the fact that humans possess dignity is that they are created by a supremely good God in God's own image.
3. Probably there is a supremely good God. 

Kant himself insisted that his argument was not a theoretical argument, but an argument grounded in practical reason. The conclusion of the argument is not “God exists” or “God probably exists” but “I (as a rational, moral agent) ought to believe that God exists.”

The Atheist Divorce

Evangelist, Ray Comfort has a great sense of humor, as is demonstrated in the title of his book, God Doesn't Believe in Atheists. As it turns out, a study done by the University of Helsinki, of Finland, suggests he's right.

"We examined whether atheists exhibit evidence of emotional arousal when they dare God to cause harm to themselves and their intimates. In Study 1, the participants (16 atheists, 13 religious individuals) read aloud 36 statements of three different types: God, offensive, and neutral. In Study 2 (N D 19 atheists), 10 new stimulus statements were included in which atheists wished for negative events to occur. The atheists did not think the God statements were as unpleasant as the religious participants did in their verbal reports. However, the skin conductance level showed that asking God to do awful things was equally stressful to atheists as it was to religious people and that atheists were more affected by God statements than by wish or offensive statements. The results imply that atheists’ attitudes toward God are ambivalent in that their explicit beliefs conflict with their affective response." 

Do not presume to think that this means the researchers will be "finding" God or reconsidering methodological natural evolution (as expressed by Phillip Johnson in, Reason in the Balance, to distinguish the secular ideology that relegates God to the church house, forever banishing him from the scientific study of the origins of life and the beginning of the universe), after all, this is not Moody Bible Institute or Dallas Theological Seminary that were talking about here. 

According to the researchers: 

"There is a strong tendency in the current work on supernatural beliefs to suggest that religiosity is natural. Belief in a supernatural, intentional agent is assumed to be a cognitive default, a byproduct of evolutionary adaptations for social cognition that are present in all humans. Accordingly, Bering has argued that atheism is only skin deep: whether or not people consider themselves to be atheists, their verbal self-description may have little bearing on their implicit supernatural beliefs."

Belief in God is "natural," it is a "cognitive default," it's "implicit." The fact that the researchers presuppose naturalism just makes the claims of the study all the more interesting to me. On occasion I play the "devil's advocate" with antagonistic pseudo-evangelical atheists, by pointing out the fact that if evolution is true, than religion and religious belief is the product of evolution, and is therefore completely normal and even natural. Then I go on to argue that any attempt to discourage belief in God is an attempt to counter evolution. My final thrust is to point out that they are acting inconsistent with their views regarding natural evolution. It's a matter of cognitive dissonance. Taken into account with the study, this also implies that for the new militant atheists, their antagonism toward belief arises out of emotion, rather than bald faced facts and/or good will, as many like to use as a pretense. 

Often times this leads to the issue of whether or not religion and/or religious belief (i.e. belief in God) is a beneficial "adaptation," which generally ensues into a dialogue about the impact that Christ has made in people's lives and how that plays out in the real world. For this pragmatic argument to work, we who profess faith must pay more than mere lip service to our King. We must demonstrate his love to the world, practically and honestly, and that includes antagonists. The fact is, many, too many, believers have fallen to the way side, abandoning the faith because of a lack of grace and love in the lives of fellow believers, especially close friends and mentors. We cannot merely use the parable of the sower to excuse our own negligence. In the end, it will be your life rather than scientific data that will draw people to Christ (John 17:18; John 20:21). 

Marjaana Lindeman , Bethany Heywood , Tapani Riekki & Tommi Makkonen (2014) Atheists Become Emotionally Aroused When Daring God to Do Terrible Things, The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 24:2, 124-132, DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2013.771991 

Dr. Greg Boyd: Atheism To Belief

Alvin Plantinga vs. The Grey

I like Liam Neeson as an actor, Les Misérables (1998) is a favorite of mine, and so this winter I checked out The Grey at the local library. Unfortunately, the language was so bad that I had to practically mute the sound and opted for the closed captions instead. Unlike The Chronicles of Narnia, this is not what I would call "family friendly" entertainment. It is a rather haunting movie, the kind that stays in your head for a while, so I thought a lot about the underlying philosophy. In the end, the film is more about man's existential predicament and the hiddeness of God, than it is about survival.

After the long painstaking fight for survival, watching each one of his comrades die, one by one, from the wreck, related injuries, wolf attacks, the weather, falling out of a tree, exhaustion, despair, suicide, drowning, being without food, water, shelter, survival gear, rest and subject to the elements of nature, "the unlikely hero Ottway" lays on the ground, looking into the sky in desperation and cries out to God, "Do something. Do something!" After no response, he trails off in the bitter reality of being utterly alone to contend with the forces of nature, stating, "I'll do it myself." We then see him kneeling in the snow going through the pictures in the wallets of the men who are dead. He looks at their families and then considers his own wife. With his wife being deceased, he only has her memory to give him any semblance of meaning, everything else is gone, including his hope of survival. At this point the wolf pack is upon him and the future is already played out. He remembers his father's poem and knows he must make his own choice and that with courage. Allowing fear to paralyze him is not an option. Meanwhile, he has no real reason to live, except for the sake of survival itself, no matter, he will make his choice and stand his ground, however futile it may be. He will not allow his circumstances to dictate his actions, he will not lay down and give up. This is our hero! 

The Amazon reviews are pretty black and white, either people liked it or hated it and I think it is the meaninglessness and futility of it all that most people found so disturbing. It is more than having wasted two hours, it is becoming emotionally interested in the characters only to have all possible hope of survival dashed to pieces, but then the film goes on to take it another step further, in which it attempts to capture the finality of death and thus the essential meaninglessness of life. Francis Shaeffer has talked a lot about this despair. In The God Who is There, he explains how many atheists have tried to live as if there is no meaning in life, but their attempts have been utterly futile. Meanwhile, some antagonists accuse Christians of using a crutch, but it is just a simple fact that none of us can live under the psychological stress that atheism places man under, that is to say, it is impossible to live as though there is no meaning.

There is an interesting wilderness story that Alvin Plantinga relates in his Spiritual Autobiography that relates to our hero's search for God. "There has been only one other occasion on which I felt the presence of God with as much immediacy and strength. That was when I once foolishly went hiking alone off-trail in really rugged country south of Mt. Shuksan in the North Cascades, getting lost when rain, snow and fog obscured all the peaks and landmarks. That night, while shivering under a stunted tree in a cold mixture of snow and rain, I felt as close to God as I ever have, before or since. I wasn't clear as to his intentions for me, and I wasn't sure I approved of what I thought his intentions might be (the statistics on people lost alone in that area were not at all encouraging), but I felt very close to him; his presence was enormously palpable. On many other occasions I have felt the presence of God, sometimes very powerfully: in the mountains (the overwhelming grandeur of the night sky from a slope at 13,000 feet), at prayer, in church, when reading the Bible, listening to music, seeing the beauty of the sunshine on the leaves of a tree or on a blade of grass, being in the woods on a snowy night, and on other kinds of occasions."

I find this to be a most interesting contrast of character representations. You have renown Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, who takes great comfort in knowing God's presence, especially when forced to face nature's fury, and then there is the angry atheist existentialist who chooses to completely isolate himself as he contends with his certain dismal fate.

Mount Shuksan

The Illusions of Atheism

Alex Rosenberg, an advocate of scientism, recently debated William Lane Craig At Purdue, too bad I missed it, and it was in my own back yard. Tom Gilson of Christian Apologetics Alliance wrote an interesting examination of Rosenberg's book, The Atheist's Guide to Reality.  

When atheists try to define the mind as a mere physical object, the person (or soul) is essentially reduced to electricity and everything he or she thinks is actually illusory. 

Gilson notes in his article, "Rosenberg says that science proves our brains and our thoughts are purely physical, and thus we have to give up thinking our thoughts are about anything." Rosenberg puts it in the question, "How can one clump of stuff anywhere in the universe be about some other clump of stuff anywhere else in the universe…?" He concludes, "Since there are no thoughts about things, notions of purpose, plan, or design in the mind are illusory…" (The Atheist’s Guide to Reality). But, it doesn't end there, this strict physicalism goes on to dictate that such thoughts as romance, love, justice, virtue, empathy, kindness, morality, and reason, must also of necessity be mere illusion. That is to say, when you tuck your baby girl in bed at night and tell her you love her as you kiss her on the forehead, it is all just an illusion. You only "think" that you love her, but alas, it is only a mirage. For Dawkins & Company, this is just the cold hard facts about life. And yet, which one of the new star-spangled pseudo-heroes actually have the courage to live like this?

The fact is, no one lives like this. No one can live like this. It contradicts everything that it means to be human. I would even go so far to say that it even contradicts the Humanist Manifesto. The only way to embrace the richness of humanity is to recognize the creator's indelible imprint on his creation. There are certain areas where methodological science comes to a philosophical impasse, that is to say, the gateway closes in on itself, it locks itself in. And they say, religion impedes the progress of science...

http://www.apologeticalliance.com/blog/2013/02/03/if-you-believe-atheism-is-true-then-atheism-is-false/ 

The Descent of Atheism

Atheists have long argued that they are not necessarily morally inferior to Christians on account of their 'lack of faith.' Other philosophers such as Christian thinker, Dr. William Lane Craig would consent to that line of reasoning. Meanwhile, atheists such as Richard Dawkins and company would make the claim that atheists are actually morally superior. Of course, we have no idea just where Dawkins derives such moral standards, but from his own self appointed moral superiority. He seems to have at once claimed the heritage of Christian morality while at the same time prescribing secular naturalism in a pure undaunted authoritarianism. For Dawkins, it is fine for churches to go on in their meaningless existence so long as they do not preach out of the Bible.

But just what exactly does atheism have to offer our world?

The Brick Testament: A Skeptics Bible?

Following my favorite childhood hobby, I have taken great pleasure in introducing my kids to Legos. Every Christmas they can depend on getting a new box. In addition to gifts, most of their own spending money also goes to support their obsession. They've been to Legoland at the American Mall and most recently Schaumburg's Legoland Discovery Center. Of course the internet has all kinds of amazing constructions. One group of Lego fanatics actually built a life size replica of a house. When I found the Brick Testament, I thought that was a pretty cool idea. The kids got all excited and we started reading through some of the Bible stories. It wasn't long till I started getting annoyed by little things. What seemed like a great illustrated Bible, turned out to be riddled with bits of sinister contempt underlining certain stories. Could it be a Bible written for skeptics? Just who is this author, “Rev” Brendan Powell Smith?

In October 2012, the Brick New Testament was featured in Time and the Huffington Post. It's now available on Amazon and becoming increasingly popular among Christians and homeschoolers. How long will it be before the local Christian bookstore picks it up? I've already seen it used as sermon illustrations. When approached about the author being a skeptic, the pastor just couldn't believe it and continued using it in his sermons. Maybe this blog will help make things clear, as long as Smith doesn't decide to remove all the evidence from his pages. Before you start your own investigation, make sure your prepared to wade through all the profanities, sarcasm and skeptical rants inundated throughout his blog.

On October 2, Smith posted in his news, “This Saturday, October 6, I will be back in the valley signing books at a Freethinker's convention. I love my job. C'mon out, meet some nice folks and get a signed book! If you can't make it to these great events, you can always order a signed copy of any of The Brick Bible books from The Brick Bible shop! Always nice to meet fans in person though.”¹ I have no problem associating with nice folks who are skeptics and atheist “freethinkers”, how else are Christians suppose to reach out to them with the Gospel? But, isn't the invitation a bit odd? And, if the book is being marketed to this kind of audience, shouldn't it at least arouse some curiosity?

Commenting on one of his chapters, Smith posted a blog titled, “Abraham willing to kill own son for God”, Smith asks, “How morally vile an act would you be willing to perpetrate if you were convinced God told you to do it? Would you steal someone’s wallet? Would you punch a random stranger in the face? Would you hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper? Would you slit your beloved son’s throat and burn his corpse? These are the sorts of questions that the faithful must ask themselves, for one never know when they will be tested. And lest you imagine that, as in the latest set of illustrated stories at The Brick Testament website, God will always shows up at the last second to tell you it was all only a test…keep in mind that sometimes God actually wants you to go through with it.” ²

Perhaps you have read some of the praises associated with this work. Rev. Wanda Lundy, professor of Ministry Studies at New York Theological Seminary calls it, “A spectacular twenty-first century Biblical art masterpiece.” “A curiously powerful graphic novel.” - Publisher's Weekly. Wired.com says, “From the pew warmer to the geek dad, this book is the perfect gift.” Can people really be so gullible? Maybe they don't really care.

Remember, as the subtitle states, “A New Spin on the Story of Jesus.” Here's Smith's commentary on his adaptation of Armageddon, “God has a plan. Our pathetic, puny human minds cannot comprehend the utter and sheer brilliance of God’s plan (and God made sure of that by only equipping us with pathetic, puny human minds), but rest assured that God does indeed most certainly have a plan. And here’s one thing we can know about God’s plan: it involves torture. Lots and lots of torture. Sure, torture is generally regarded by us comparatively dim-witted humans as the most morally vile, reprehensible, and cruel behavior possible. But this must only show our lack of intelligence, because God can’t get enough of the stuff. In our latest four illustrated stories from Revelation, God continues to pour down wave after wave of horrible torments on mankind.”³

Now I ask you, does this sound like the kind of person who believes in God? Obviously Smith doesn't think God is trustworthy. He certainly doesn't rely on exegesis and hermeneutics to aid his understanding of Biblical texts and cultural contexts; neither are of any concern or consequence to his agenda. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he was reading through this blog, laughing all the way: the thought of Christians using his “Bible,” he probably never even imagined it would be such a hit. His is the work of pure sarcasm. He's actually contending against Christianity, mocking the Bible. There's better works out there. If you have kids who like illustrated books, then I recommend, The Action Bible, illustrated by Sergio Cariello. Another great Bible story book that is out of print is God's Story: The Bible Told as One Story by Karen Henly.

Footnotes / Sources

1. http://www.thebricktestament.com/latest_additions/index.html
2. http://www.thereverend.com/archives/2010/12/09/abraham-willing-to-kill-own-son-for-god/
3. http://www.thereverend.com/archives/2009/06/05/the-brick-testament-armageddon/
4. http://www.thebricktestament.com/home.html
   
5. http://brendanpowellsmith.com/
   

Free eBooks

I've come across numerous web sights that have great ebooks available for free online and some for download, from Alvin Plantinga to Zwingli. Check it out on my resource page:

http://helpfulresources.blogspot.com/2011/02/free-ebooks.html


My general blog for resources can be found here:

http://helpfulresources.blogspot.com/

Anti-supernaturalism and the Search for the Historical Jesus

Right off the bat, we can know that when someone is searching for the "historical Jesus" it is likely that they are not starting with the Bible. And yet, the best information that we have regarding Jesus' life and teachings is in the New Testament documents. As many skeptics have made it their investigation, often with the intent to discredit them as historically reliable, they have returned with an outspoken faith; William Albright, Sir William Ramsey and Frank Morison are just a few examples. Former atheist, Craig Keener, has argued that the Gospels are in fact biographical accounts and that as such, they should be considered historical. The New Testament documents find their selves closest to the actual events and they retain and ever growing manuscript authority that is quite remarkable. Yet, these documents are held under an unusual amount of skepticism.

Obviously, there lies at the crux of the matter regarding the historical Jesus, the issue of miracles. In a recent discussion regarding the resurrection testimonies, I asked one such skeptic, if he were to personally experience a flash of light and hear an Earth shaking voice say, "BELIEVE," causing his neighbors to come running out of their house yelling, "What was that?" Would he then believe? He, in turn, responded with a non-answer, saying that he did not know what he would do. Perhaps he was being honest, but more likely he was evading the question.

The particular gentleman in discussion is so skeptical that he actually rejected the agnostic, Bart Erhman's postition that the early followers of Jesus really did think that Jesus was resurrected. Erhman was quoted as saying,

“Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution” (Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium [Oxford: OUP, 2001], 231).

I noted, "I think it sufficient to say that you, not only deny the miraculous, but cannot even conceive of believing your own eyes and ears in such a case. It seems a bit disingenuous that you would challenge the testimony of another, when you would not even believe your own eyes and ears. That being the case, how is it that such a person could be capable of extracting any historical value from the texts referred to (1 Corinthians 15:1-8, in conjunction with Tacitus, Polycarp and Tertullian as early non-canonical sources)?"

I then asked, "Don't you think it might be just a little arrogant to dismiss the historicity of the Gospels, the Pauline epistles and Acts based on your own personal subjective experiences and presuppositional bias against the miraculous? How could such a contention hope to find a viable position against those who have witnessed the affirmative in regard to the miraculous?"

My conclusion is that "there is no logical reason to reject the New Testament biographical accounts, except for an extremely biased presuppositional attitude against miracles and the very existence of God."




Suggested Reading:
The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig Keener,
The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright,
Jesus and the Eye Witness: The Gospels as Eye Witness Testimony by Richard Bauckham


Original Blog, Did Peter and Paul Die for Their Belief that Jesus Rose? by Dr. Clay Jones:
http://www.clayjones.net/2011/01/peter-and-paul-killed-for-proclaiming-jesus-rose/

Tony Blair vs. Christopher Hitchens

Atheist, Christopher Hitchens and former British prime minister Tony Blair duked it out Friday in a debate on whether religion is good or bad for the world.

First of all, if it were possible for God not to exist then that would mean that religion is a mere social convention, a product of evolution. If religion is a source of evil, then it only reflects human character; therefore Hitchen's argument is misfounded. His argument should be against humanity. The various secret societies and political parties involved in world affairs throughout the ages can attest to this, including the rise of Hitler. I don't know anything about the Catholic Church and it's reaction to AIDS, as was brought up by Hitchens, but I do know that it is Christians who are in Africa helping them. I also know that people continue to die in Africa from malaria, as the result of left-wing political activism.

I would also like to point out that prior to the advent of Jesus, it was the conqueror who was the hero of the day. Crucifixion was no glamorous tribute to have on one's epitaph. Sacrifice for name's sake was one thing, but when Jesus cried, "Father forgive them," he was speaking a foreign language. The end result however, is that the heroes of our day are not conquerors but those who sacrifice for the sake of others. Consequently, Hitchens is literally borrowing from the Christian worldview as he argues against the evil acts committed in the name of religion.

Ultimately, the problem with secular humanism (the atheist religion) is that it assumes that man is basically good, when in fact man is fallen in nature. The only hope for humanity is the redemption that is found in Jesus, the Christ. This is why most of us who claim the title Christian baulk at calling it religion. For those of us who have been changed, it is the very real power of God. No superstition, no religious tradition, rather, it is an encounter.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101127/religion-debate-pits-blair-against-hitchens/

Brains and Pop Cans

The following is an excerpt from Joe Boot's essay, "Broader Cultural and Philosophical Challenges."

It is important to note that reason and logic are components of a worldview, not a total synoptic view of reality. Consequently, intelligibility rests on the origin of logic and reasoning within that worldview, which skeptics either reduce to chance or admit they simply cannot tell us.…to form a logical argument to presuppose logic as an ultimate foundation is to use a piece of reasoning to validate the whole, which simply begs the question. Once again, faith is found to be indispensable to reason. We cannot prove, without God, that our minds convey any truth at all. The Christian proof itself is indirect by showing that the exclusion of the transcendent God is unintelligible and absurd as it destroys all meaning, collapsing all reality into pure metaphysics. Michael Robinson writes:

If there is no God, we are just molecules in motion, and we have no sense and no mind; we are just the random firing of chemicals in the brain. If our minds are composed only of physical matter, then our thoughts are, as Douglas Wilson wittily quipped in his debate with atheist Dan Barker, just “brain gas.” …If our minds are just the result of chemical reactions, then in the debate over pop cans, God’s existence can rightly be settled by shaking the two pop cans simultaneously. Labeling one can “atheism” and the other “theism”; after shaking the cans, the one that fizzes the most wins the debate. If our minds are simply the fluctuations of proteins, neurotransmitters, and other brain biochemicals, then an intellectual debate is equivalent to the chemical reactions that occur when one shakes up a can of soda.

Joe Boot's essay, Broader Cultural and Philosophical Challenges, is included in Beyond Opinion, ..Ravi.. Zacharias, Author and General Editor, p. 170-171.

Michael Robinson, God Does Exist.

John Lennox Takes on Stephen Hawking

As Stephen Hawking recently made another splash in the news, putting his weight in with the anti-theistic cheering crowd, Dr. John Lennox examined the content of the dead-end argument, pointing out that he is certainly wrong. "

According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'"

John Lennox explains how Hawking makes a categorical error by confusing the "law" with the "agency." "...physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions."

In other words, it only brings us back to the original question: Why is there something rather than nothing?

On Lennox's websight a very interesting post was made by Byrom, "Hawking is claiming that something can come into being from nothing (or worse that the universe can create itself). God, however, is not claimed to have had a beginning to his existence, nor created himself. God is eternal and uncaused."

Byrom continues, "With God, one simply commits oneself to X existing. With Hawking’s universe, one is committing to X not existing, but then creating itself (which would require it to exist before it existed - logically absurd)."

As an Oxford professor with three PhDs, John Lennox takes on the new atheists in his excellent book that I highly recommend, "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?" It would make a great gift for a college student or anyone else who might be experiencing pressure from the secular elite. In his book, he examines the numerous categorical errors that take place in "THE BIG DEBATE." Of course he had personal experience when he debated the infamous Richard Dawkins.

For the entire article by John Lennox: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html

http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/stephen_hawking_and_god/

The Appendectomy of Militant Atheism

By J. Paul Dill

The most fascinating factor in Christian conversion is the inner transformation that takes place. Many atheists doubt the veracity of miracles. If no other miracle was evident besides the resurrection, the rebirth would be enough. Murderers, drunks, homeless, hateful, vengeful people are instantly transformed by the power of the gospel. Some do indeed turn to AA and such for help, but an inner change begins to take place nonetheless. I have seen men's arms with needle marks up one side and down the other who today are in executive positions as a direct result of the Gospel. I have met former murderous drug addicted pimps who are now preaching hope to the seemingly insignificant of society. I know one man who upon his release from jail dragged a woman out of her house in front of her child and stuck the barrel of his gun down her throat for stealing his drugs while he was incarcerated. If you seen him praying for people in front of the church where he pastors today you would never believe it was him. I know two men who were millionaires at one time, who lost everything and literally became homeless. Today they are reconciling with their families as a direct result of Jesus changing them from the inside out. What is this thing about Jesus that has more power than all the green stuff that we are so obsessed with? Isn't money synonymous with success and fulfillment?

Now for some of you no matter how long I went on it would not faze you a bit. But for these people and millions of others, this transformation is not only real but it is evidence of a divine power that penetrates the heart, transforming us inside-out. This change that takes place seems to act on its own, sort of naturally. Of course it involves the will and desire, but often times this unearthly power supercedes the will in such a way that alcoholics are literally no longer riddled with a desire whatsoever. The sexually abused woman is no longer bitter and living in gilt driven grief, she is now not only wanting to forgive (often times to everyone's horror), but actually wants to help the abuser mend his soul. What would normally require years of therapy is resolved instantly with the Gospel. The power of the gospel can so infect a man that it causes him to do things that he would never do and stretch him well beyond what would be his breaking point. It is in reality a change in the person's very nature, it is what Jesus called being 'born again,' 'born from above'. This is not fueled by heaven, hell, a merit system or anything else that is self-serving. Of course heaven and hell have their place, often times they can motivate in one way or another. But there is something much deeper down affecting the psyche than fear could ever penetrate. This of course is something that atheism/naturalism cannot touch. Humanism and naturalism are powerless to transform street derelicts into bonafide saints. I have met humanistic philosophers who have made their bed out of a park bench. Others have spent their last days in the insane asylum.

Atheism literally means 'no god.' Complications with the defenseless nature of the traditional definition have given rise to a new definition of atheism 'absence of belief in God.' This allows the atheist to feel free to criticize belief in God supposedly without having to defend his own position (which is especially good for him considering it is impossible to prove there is no God).

The biggest problem that I see for the atheist view is that when pressed to explain itself realistically, it has little if any explaining power neither does it have anything to offer of any real value to the human predicament. The reality of Christian conversion, the miracle of the new birth is one of the many factors that naturalism has yet to adequately explain. Why are Christians happier and healthier than atheists? Why does atheism lead to more of a pessimistic view of life and Christianity more of a positive outlook? I find that atheism simply does not fit comfortably within the real world, it cannot make sense of our existence and it can only mock our affinities toward spirituality. Fact is we are spiritual beings. We hunger for something to worship. We long for fulfillment of our deepest needs. We create idols out of anything we can get our hands on: from money to mother earth. For naturalism the question of meaning is irrelevant, there is none. For humanism worship is meaningless because there is no god but self. What does atheism offer? Freedom! Freedom from morality, freedom from accountability.

Atheism's deficiency does not prove the Bible is true neither does it disprove atheism. It is my surmise that the view that the world is devoid of God is not practical or realistic. It was Francis Schaeffer who is accredited with 'taking the roof off' you do this by pushing an idea to its logical conclusion. It is my conclusion that atheistic humanism and naturalism are utterly bankrupt. Human experience points to something or someone beyond us. I think that the evidence points toward a someone and that someone has revealed Himself to the world in Jesus Christ. You might consider that a rather bodacious statement; I think you should want to ask yourself what if it’s true? Before you allow the doctor to remove your appendix you might want to find out what its function is, if you need it and what the alternatives are. Fact is God is far more critical to our survival than our appendix!

If you are an honest seeker and are interested in investigating Christ here are some scholarly resources to help you on your quest:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer
http://www.tektonics.org/
http://www.reasons.org/
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
http://www.leaderu.com/index.html