Here are other pages of Interest about skepticism and or Atheism!

Atheism’s Fall:The Demise of the Deniers of the Faith!

Honest Answers to Skeptical Questioning: The Hard Facts!

Evidence & Answers: Do you believe Truth or Excuses?

Christian Responses to Atheistic Attacks!

What is Atheism? Is it valid to take their word for ’God’?

The real evidence FOR God AGAINST Evolution and Atheism!

If God created everything? Then who created Evil?…Hmmmmmm!

The “Straw-man” syndrome and the state of Good Debate!

Religion SUCKS on so many levels! Atheist’s & Skeptic’s have a valid Point!

Spiritual Gifts HAVE NOT CEASED! The teaching of Cessationism is the Churches SHAME!

The TRUTH about Bodily Healing and God’s ONCE FOR ALL Atonement!

Honest Answers to Skeptical Questioning! Suprised & Silenced By God’s Healing Power!

Proving the Bible’s Worth!

If the Bible is God’s Word then skeptics have NO ground to base their skepticism on EXCEPT lies.

IS THE BIBLE GOD’S WORD?
by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved

The preceding chapters have provided strong evidence for the historical reliability of the Bible, as well as for the resurrection and deity of Christ.

In this chapter, evidence showing the Bible to be God’s Word will be examined.

The case for the inspiration of the Scriptures builds upon the evidence produced in the last four chapters

CHRIST’S TEACHINGS CONCERNING THE OLD TESTAMENT

This work has shown that the evidence demonstrates that Jesus is God. Therefore, whatever Jesus taught should be accepted as true and authoritative. John W. Wenham discussed Christ’s view of the Old Testament:

Our Lord not only believed the truth of the Old Testament history and used the Scriptures as final authority in matters of faith and conduct, he also regarded the writings themselves as inspired. To Him, Moses, the prophets, David, and the other Scripture writers were given their messages by the Spirit of God.1

Some of Christ’s teachings concerning the Old Testament are as follows:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all has been accomplished”

(Matthew 5:17-18).

“And He answered and said to them, “And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’ “

(Matthew 15:3-4)

“But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”?

(Matthew 22:31-32)

He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down. . .”

(Mark 7:9-13).

David himself said in the Holy Spirit, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, until I put Thine enemies beneath Thy feet.’ “

(Mark 12:36)

It is abundantly clear that Jesus considered the entire Old Testament (what the Jews of His day called “the Law and the Prophets”) to be the inspired Word of God. He referred to the Old Testament authors as prophets

(Matthew 11:13; 12:39; 22:40; 23:31-35; 24:15; 26:56; Luke 16:16-17, 31; 18:31; 24:44; John 6:45),

meaning proclaimers of God’s truth. In fact, Jesus spoke of the prophets as beginning with Abel and ending with Zechariah (Luke 11:49-51).

This covers the exact time period of the Old Testament, from creation to about 400BC. Since Christ is God Himself, his view of the Old Testament must be correct. Therefore, the Old Testament is the written Word of God.

CHRIST’S VIEW OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Christ ascended to heaven before the New Testament was recorded. However, the promises He made to his apostles guaranteed that the New Testament would be the inspired Word of God:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age”

(Matthew 28:19-20).

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away”

(Mark 13:31).

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you”

(John 14:26).

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning”

(John 15:26-27).

“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come”

(John 16:13).

“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth”

(Acts 1:8).

From these quotes of Christ, five conclusions can be drawn. First, Jesus promised that His teachings would be preserved.

Second, He said that the Holy Spirit would remind the apostles of all that He told them.

Third, the Holy Spirit would reveal future events to the apostles.

Fourth, the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into the truth (prevent them from promoting doctrinal errors).

Fifth, the Holy Spirit would empower the apostles to be Christ’s authoritative representatives to the world.

From the above conclusions it is clear that Christ promised to preserve His teachings through the apostles’ writings. Obviously, these writings make up the New Testament.

Since Jesus is almighty God, His plan cannot be thwarted.

Therefore, since He promised to preserve His words through the teachings of the apostles, then their teachings (which have been passed on to future generations) are the teachings of Christ. Hence, they are the Word of God

It should also be noted that Jesus taught that only the Old Testament and the teachings of His apostles (the New Testament) were the Word of God.

The evidence declares Jesus to be God. Jesus taught that both the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God. Therefore, the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God.

THE SUPERNATURAL WISDOM OF THE BIBLE

The evidence presented above is sufficient to demonstrate that the Bible is God’s Word. Still, there are other factors which help corroborate this evidence.

The supernatural wisdom and the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible verify that the Bible is God’s Word.

Christian thinkers such as Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)2 and Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984)3 have noted that only the Bible offers an adequate explanation for both man’s greatness and man’s wretchedness.

Modern man, even with all his accumulated knowledge, cannot sufficiently account for both aspects in man.

Atheistic evolutionists may be able to explain the wretchedness of man, for they see man as merely an animal, but they cannot satisfactorily account for man’s greatness.

New Age Pantheists recognize man’s greatness by attributing godhood to him, but, they offer no convincing reason why man is so wretched.

The Bible alone offers an adequate explanation for both aspects of man. Man is great because he was created in God’s image; he is wretched because he is in a fallen state.4 This indicates that the wisdom found in the Bible supersedes the wisdom of man.

Evidence for the supernatural wisdom of the Bible can also be seen in the realm of science. At a time when men thought the earth was flat, the Bible taught that it was a sphere (Isaiah 40:22, 700BC).

At a time when men thought the earth rested on the back of a giant turtle, the Bible taught that is was suspended in space (Job 26:7, 2000BC).

At about 1500BC the Bible taught that the stars could not be counted (Genesis 15:5); yet, in 150AD an astronomer named Ptolemy taught that there were exactly 1056 stars.5 Today, modern science confirms that the stars are innumerable.

In about 1850AD, the first and second laws of thermodynamics were discovered by modern science. The first law teaches that no new energy is being created or destroyed.

The second law teaches that, though the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, the amount of usable energy is running down. Therefore, the universe is winding down. The Bible taught both of these laws thousands of years ago.

The Bible states that God is resting from His creation work (Genesis 2:1-3), and that the universe will someday pass away (Mark 13:31; Isaiah 40:31).

The Bible does teach, however, that God will make a new heaven and a new earth when the old ones pass away (Revelation 21:1).

There was no such thing as modern science in biblical times. Hence, the information mentioned above demands a source which transcends that of man, a supernatural source.6 H. L. Willmington commented on this subject:

In 1861 the French Academy of Science published a brochure of fifty-one “scientific facts” which supposedly contradicted the Bible. These were used by the atheists of that day in ridiculing Christians. Today all fifty-one of those “facts” are unacceptable to modern scientists.7

FULFILLED PROPHECIES

The Bible claims repeatedly to be the Word of God. One of the most powerful witnesses to the truth of this claim is the many fulfilled prophecies proclaimed in the Bible.

This work has already examined a sample of prophecies fulfilled by Christ. Here, a few more of the many biblical prophecies that have already come to pass will be discussed.

The Bible has made many predictions concerning the future of great nations and cities. The following is a brief discussion of a few of the prophecies fulfilled concerning these cities and nations.

Around 590—570BC, the prophet Ezekiel predicted that the city of Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt, and that it would become a barren rock which fishermen would use to mend their nets (Ezekiel 26:4, 5, 14).

Though Tyre was destroyed and rebuilt many times throughout history, it was ultimately devastated in 1291AD by Muslim invaders.

Today, all that is left of the ancient site of Tyre is a small fishing community which uses the barren ground to dry their nets.8

In the sixth century BC, Ezekiel also predicted that the city of Sidon would suffer much violence and bloodshed throughout her history, yet remain in existence (Ezekiel 28:23).

Though Sidon has been invaded and defeated numerous times throughout her history, the city still exists today.9

In 625BC, the prophet Zephaniah predicted that the city of Ashkelon would someday be destroyed, but that it would eventually be inhabited by the Jews (Zephaniah 2:4, 6).

Ashkelon was destroyed in 1270AD by Sultan Bibars. The city remained uninhabited for centuries until the nation of Israel was reestablished in 1948. Now, the Jews have rebuilt and re-inhabited Ashkelon.10

Zephaniah also predicted that the Philistines—a powerful enemy of the Jews throughout much of the Old Testament—would be totally wiped out. Though they continued to prosper for many centuries, they eventually became extinct in 1200AD (Zephaniah 2:5).11

The prophet Obadiah, writing in either 841BC or 586BC, prophesied the extinction of the Edomites, who were the descendants of Esau and enemies of the Jews (Obadiah 18).

When the Romans devastated the city of Jerusalem in 70AD, they also defeated the remnants of Edom (called the Idumeans at that time). At that time, all traces of the Edomites disappear.12

In 740—680BC, the prophet Isaiah predicted that Egypt would still be a nation in the last days (Isaiah 19:21-22). In spite of the many wars Egypt has encountered throughout her four-thousand year history, this ancient nation remains in existence to this day.13

In 1410BC, Moses predicted that Israel would be scattered among the nations of the world (Deuteronomy 28:64).

The prophet Hosea, in 710BC, predicted this dispersion of Israel as well (Hosea 9:17). History records that after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, the Jews were scattered throughout the world.14

Both Isaiah and Ezekiel prophesied that Israel would be re-gathered in her land in the last days (Isaiah 11:11-12; Ezekiel 37:21). This happened in 1948AD when the nation of Israel was reestablished. The Jews continue to return to their land to this day.15

God told Abraham that those who cursed Israel would be cursed by God (Genesis 12:3). This prophecy has been fulfilled many times. Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, the Roman Empire, and Nazi Germany are a few examples of nations or empires that persecuted and oppressed Israel.

While the tiny nation of Israel still exists today, Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany have collapsed and are no longer in existence.

During the 1930’s and 1940’s, Nazi Germany had slaughtered six-million Jews and its war machine was devastating Europe. By 1948, Nazi Germany was nonexistent and the Jews had control of their homeland—the nation of Israel— for the first time since 586BC.16

Each of these prophecies has been fulfilled to the detail. Many other biblical prophecies have also been fulfilled. It should also be noted that no futuristic prophecy of Scripture has ever been shown to be false.

This separates the Bible from false prophets such as Edgar Cayce and Jean Dixon. Their success rate is much lower than the perfect accuracy of the predictions made by the Bible.17 Henry Morris made the following comment:

It seems reasonable to conclude that the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy constitutes a unique and powerful evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible.18

The evidence provided above for the Bible being God’s Word is threefold. First, Jesus (who is God) taught that the Bible is God’s Word. Second, the Bible contains insights that go beyond mere human wisdom.

Third, the Bible made numerous predictions, many of which have been fulfilled. None of these predictions have proven false (though some prophecies have yet to be fulfilled).

In short, there are good reasons for believing the Bible is God’s Word. Those who reject the divine inspiration of the Bible have failed to explain the three factors above.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

Since the Bible can be shown to be God’s Word, several implications follow. First, since the cosmological argument has shown God to be infinite and perfect, there can be no error in His Word as originally recorded.

God can only proclaim truth; otherwise, He would be less than perfect. Therefore, the Bible is wholly true (inerrant). Second, since the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, it is authoritative. God has spoken, and everything must be tested by the truth He has given.

Third, whatever is taught in God’s inerrant and authoritative Word should be adhered to by all.

This work has already presented evidence for some of the major tenents of orthodox Christianity (the existence of one God, creation by God, the resurrection of Jesus, and Christ’s deity).

Since the evidence indicates the Bible is God’s Word, whatever it teaches must be true.

Therefore, other important Christian doctrines (e.g., salvation by grace through faith in Christ, the substitutionary death of Christ, the Trinity, and Christ’s future return to earth) can be defended by showing that they are taught in the Bible

Concerning salvation, the Bible teaches that all people are sinners who cannot save themselves (Romans 3:10, 23; 6:23; Matthew 19:25-26).

Scripture teaches that man cannot earn his salvation; salvation is a free gift given by God’s grace (unmerited favor) to those who trust (believe) in Jesus for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16-18; 6:35, 47; Romans 6:23). Only through Jesus can man be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

The Bible teaches that Jesus took mankind’s punishment upon Himself by dying on the cross for their sins

(Isaiah 53:5-6, 12; Matthew 1:21; Mark 10:45; John 1:29; Romans 5:8-10; Ephesians 1:7; 2 Corinthians 5:15, 21; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; Hebrews 10:10, 14; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 1:7; 2:1-2; Revelation 5:9).

The God of the Bible is holy and just; He cannot forgive sin unless it has been paid for in full. The good news is that Jesus (who is fully man and fully God) is the ultimately worthy sacrifice who has paid for the sins of the world through His death on the cross (Revelation 5:1-14).

He died as a substitute for all of mankind. Those who accept Jesus as their Savior receive the salvation and forgiveness that He has purchased for them.

One of the most controversial teachings of Christianity is the doctrine of the Trinity, for this teaching transcends human understanding.

This doctrine declares that the one true God eternally exists as three equal Persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). God is one in essence or nature (Mark 12:29; John 10:30), but three in Personhood (Matthew 3:16-17; John 14:16, 26; 15:26).

The Bible teaches that the Father is God (Galatians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2). However, Jesus (the Son) is also called God and is described in ways that could only apply to God (Isaiah 9:6; Zechariah 14:5; John 1:1, 14; 5:17-18, 22-23; 8:58-59; 10:30-33; 17:5, 24; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Revelation 1:17-18). Jesus is worshipped as God (Matthew 2:11; 28:9; John 9:38). The Holy Spirit is also called God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

Some have speculated that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, since they are one God, must also be one Person, but, this is not what the Bible teaches.

The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons (Isaiah 48:12-16; Psalm 110:1; Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; John 14:16, 26; 15:26).

Before anything was created, the three Persons of the Trinity communicated with each other (Genesis 1:26; 11:7), shared the glory of God (John 17:5), and loved each other (John 17:24). Even while Christ was on earth, He and the Father spoke to one another, thus proving they were not the same Person (Matthew 3:16-17; 26:39; Luke 23:46; John 17:1).

When all the data is considered, it is clear that the Bible teaches that there is only one true God, but this God eternally exists as three equal Persons. Hence, the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Bible also teaches that Jesus Christ will someday return to earth in power and glory. After His return, He will rule over the nations for one-thousand years (Matthew 24:29-31; Revelation 11:15; 19:11-16; 20:4-6).

Since the available evidence declares the Bible to be God’s Word, whatever it teaches must be true. Therefore, the biblical teachings concerning salvation, Christ’s substitutionary death, the Trinity, and Christ’s return should be accepted.

It is also important to note that since whatever the Bible teaches is true, the morality taught in the Bible is authoritative.

If God calls a practice wrong, then it is wrong, regardless of common political sentiment.

Though the Bible student must differentiate between absolute moral laws which are universally binding on all men and temporary cultural laws prescribed for a specific people at a specific time, absolute moral laws taught in the Bible should be adhered to by all.

The day will come when all must answer to God, at the judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:11-15).

CONCLUSION

The argument of this chapter is threefold.

First,

Jesus of Nazareth, who is God incarnate, taught that the Bible is God’s Word. Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God.

Second,

this is confirmed by the supernatural wisdom of the Bible, as well as the many fulfilled prophecies of the Bible.

Third,

since God has been shown to be infinitely perfect, His Word is totally trustworthy. Therefore, whatever the Bible teaches is true.

Since the Bible teaches that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus as one’s Savior, then Christianity is the one true faith.

All religions which deny salvation only through Christ alone are false religions. One’s eternal destiny depends on his response to Christ. It is Jesus who calls out to all mankind, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm 101 contradictions in the Bible CLEARED UP once and for all!

http://answers.org/apologetics/contradictions.html More evidence about the Bible!!

http://www.rbc.org/questions/ HARD QUESTIONS ANSWERED!!!

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheiststest.html

An Atheist TEST (ONLY FOR ATHEISTS)
Reason And Faith
by Van Fisher

One line of attack by skeptics and scoffers concerning attempts to show the compatibility of the Bible, truth and science, is to assert that belief is incompatible with reason.

Since we must accept the Bible not based solely on our own personal experience, but also by trusting in the fundamental truths of the Bible, the attack hits close to home.

The attack usually includes quotes indicating that our “science” is “ends driven,” meaning that if the result fits with our biblical view of things, then we accept it as truth, and if it does not, we call it bogus or soft-science.

This line of attack has merit because it is partially true. However, it falls apart, or more accurately, the falsity surrounding the core of truth melts away, when put under the bright light of reason.

Starting with some stubborn facts, let’s reason together. Man has a brain capable of reason, or what we call reason. We can consider things, current, past or future, and make judgments concerning them, funny, sad, true, bad, important or irrelevant.

We can work things out, study them, test them and arrange them in a way that makes sense to us – logically, if you will. An atheist will use reason because it is in his self-interest. So will a theist. So there does not appear to be any inherent problem with reason and belief.

When we make our judgments, accepting or rejecting things based on our sense, we label them. One thing is true, another is false. One thing is good; another is very bad. Something makes sense; another is bogus.

We have a memory, so as we gain experience, we fit things together. One thing is true because another is true; another cannot be true, because it conflicts with what I know to be true. And on and on.

The Bible tells us about things outside our experience. Nobody, born in our lifetime, walks on water or rises from the grave on the third day. So in order to accept the Bible, we must bridge the gap between what we know or believe, and what we trust.

And that bridge is not reason; it is faith. But the Bible also does not ask us to build the bridge without a foundation, which is knowledge.

Therefore, I believe that reason is not the enemy of trust; it is an essential part of the foundation. It follows, of course, that the foundation should be solid, not made of falsehoods or clever stories that melt away.

It must include the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Our foundation of knowledge also includes what we believe to be true from science and from the Word of God.

Sometimes, what science in its day thought was true turned out to be bogus.

Sometimes what believers in their day thought was biblical truth, has turned out to be bogus.

An additional problem arises here.

Since trust in the Bible must be based on imperfect understanding, why not say,

“If my beliefs were good enough to gain salvation, they are good enough for all those who come after me.”

The answer of course has to do with the bridge of faith. For example, I accepted Jesus Christ based on my understanding of the King James Version of the Bible.

I had studied it, memorized verses in it, had underlined whole passages and put notes in the margin. Even though I did not understand some of its vocabulary or figures of speech, I did not see a need to change to the New American Standard Bible or New International Version.

But when my local church recognized the need for a Bible that the people of our day could understand, we changed, and our impact for Christ increased. One way to look at the premise that we should not put God to the test is to say we should not ask people of our day to use more glue (faith) than necessary given their education and knowledge.

So building a foundation of a slightly different shape, using reason and a different knowledge base is consistent with our biblical mandate to be all things to all people so some can be saved.1

Once we accept the Bible, and file it under truth in our minds, we initially reject things that conflict with what we believe is biblical truth. We accept the premise that the Bible as originally written was completely true; but we also accept the premise that our understanding of the Bible is imperfect.

So our difficulty is in separating and discarding our imperfect understanding of either science or the Bible when confronted with a paradox, two things that seem to conflict yet both seem to be true.

For example, the book of James seemed to conflict with Paul’s writings. Paul said salvation is through faith, works has nothing to do with it, and James said faith without works is dead.

However, using reason the apparent conflict can be resolved, without abandoning, or undermining the truth of both divinely inspired writings, because a reasonable interpretation shows that there is no conflict in the texts, but only in our understanding.

Works does not provide salvation; it proves salvation. Barking will not make you a dog, but a dog barks.

So the trick, it appears, is to see if we can fit scientific truth and biblical truth together, by perhaps improving our understanding and without creating additional unresolved conflicts. The task is impossible without a whole lot of Bible study.

But the Bible tells believers to study the Bible and study it well. How can I be sure of the Bible’s moral and spiritual reliability?

It must be made abundantly clear that in order for any answer to mean anything at all to those who ask,they MUST accept the RELIABILITY OF THE SOURCE OF THOSE ANSWERS !


There are many factors that give the Bible unparalleled moral and spiritual authority. The Old and New Testaments are deeply rooted in an historical and geographical record that is linked to laws, poetry, and predictions that express timeless life-changing wisdom.

Even the parts of the Old Testament with parallels in Mesopotamian literature (the creation story, the story of the flood, etc.) are incomparably superior to the pagan versions. Although it is an ancient document, its realism is stunning and contemporary.

The records of the Bible portray people in all of their complexity and inconsistency, with not only their achievements but also their sins—and the consequences of their sins—clearly displayed.


J. B. Phillips expressed in a few words what countless others have noticed about the New Testament:

It has the “ring of truth.” There are few people of any religious tradition who are familiar with it that don’t hold it in high esteem.

Further, the historical accuracy of Scripture has been demonstrated time and again—often to the surprise of skeptical scholars.


The authority of the Bible is by far the most well-attested document to come out of ancient times. The reliability of the Old Testament was confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a remarkable collection of ancient documents found preserved in caves in the Judean desert in the mid-20th century.

The age of these documents, which included large portions of the Old Testament, was determined by several independent evidences, including:


Carbon 14 tests made on the linen wrappings of the scrolls.
Coins associated with the scrolls, which date from 325 BC to AD 68.


The type of pottery found with the scrolls.


Comparative paleography (science of handwriting), a science which has already been well-established for many generations.
Linguistic analysis of Aramaic documents found in the caves.


What made the Dead Sea Scrolls such a remarkable find in confirmation of the reliability of the Old Testament was the fact that prior to their discovery the earliest text in Hebrew, the Masoretic text, dated only to the 10th century AD.

Biblical scholar Gleason Archer noted that in spite of 1,000 years separating the Scrolls and the Masoretic Text, “The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.

The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations” (Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction [Chicago, IL: Moody, 1974], p. 25).
Similarly, no serious scholar, Christian or non-Christian, has historical grounds to doubt that the modern New Testament corresponds closely to the original form in which it was written.

In his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell quotes a number of authorities on the reliability of our Bible. Here he quotes scholar A. T. Robertson:


“There are some 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and at least 1,000 for the other early versions. Add over 4,000 Greek manuscripts and we have 13,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. Besides all this, much of the New Testament can be reproduced from the quotations of the early Christian writers.”


Historical evidence for the reliability of the text is overwhelming. But its spiritual authority can only be seen by someone who is seeking truth,THIS IS THE TRUE “BIBLE CODE” HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT;WHICH ONLY THE HUMAN HEART CAN RELEASE.

It would require thousands of pages just to list the names of the outstanding people in every area of human endeavor who have looked to Scripture for their ultimate values. A random list of just a few might include:


Philosophy:

Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Soren Kierkegaard
Science: Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal
Music: J. S. Bach


Literature:

Dante Alighieri, John Donne, John Milton, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, T. S. Eliot, J. R. R Tolkien, C. S. Lewis
Politics: William Wilberforce, William Gladstone, Abraham Kuyper


The fact that the Bible provided the foundation for the personal values of some of the greatest figures of Western history doesn’t constitute a “proof” of its authority.

But, along with the Bible’s age, textual reliability, and character as great literature, its appeal to such people certainly calls for an open-minded, respectful approach to its contents.


1. Anglican physicist/theologian/priest John Polkinghorne remarks on the value of scholarly comparison between ancient biblical and Mesopotamian texts:


Those who disdain a scholarly engagement with the same text will also miss the fact that, though the accounts are clearly influenced to a degree by neighbouring Near Eastern cosmogonies, they differ in a most marked and important way from those other creation stories.

It is deeply impressive that tales of conflict among the gods, with Marduk fighting Tiamath and slicing her dead body in half from which to form the earth and sky, are replaced by a sober account in which the one true God alone is the Creator, bringing creation into being by the power of the divine word.

Equally significant is the insight that human beings are not destined to be the slaves of the gods (as in the Babylonian epic, Enuma Elish), but are created in the image of God and given a blessing so that they may fulfill the command, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28 ).

(Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality, pp. 44-45).


2. To have a clear understanding of biblical authority, it is important to understand the nature of biblical inspiration. Inspiration has two aspects. One is its authority in providing truth without error in the words of Scripture. Scripture is truly the written Word of God.

The other aspect of inspiration is that it was written by human beings who wrote with their own vocabulary, cultural background, and personal style. This fact does not controvert inspiration. Just as Christ was both truly man and truly God, the divine element in inspiration doesn’t exclude the human limitations of the Bible’s writers.


The Bible has withstood the test of time,from every imaginable direction of attack..from “Religious Bigotry and HATRED” to Atheistic attacks still ongoing to NO AVAIL. The Bible CANNOT BE OVERTURNED!


Before going on I would like to state that the “BOOK” with the black cover on your coffee table IS NOT INSPIRED UNTIL IT GETS BEYOND YOUR DISBELIEF AND IS ACCEPTED BY FAITH.

Because no matter how many PROOFS TO THE CONTRARY,YOUR PRE-CONCEIVED “DISBELIEF” WILL NEVER ALLOW YOU TO BECOME “INTELLECTUALLY HONEST WITH YOURSELF,YOU ARE SELF-DECIEVED…REPENT OR DIE IN YOUR SIN!

You are doing yourself NO favors by denying the facts!
“I believe all religions are true and that you can’t say one is superior. Besides, good people go to heaven. So, who needs Christianity?”


Hasn’t the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can’t trust it anymore?


This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English.

The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted .

The “telephone” analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one.

The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn’t fit the Bible at all. The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example.

The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals.

These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.

That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly.

But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the “problems” are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations.

For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be “Jesus Christ.” So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low.

Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.

So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language.

It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in.

So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into.

We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

The ONLY PROBLEMS COME UP IN THE NEWER TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE WHEN MEN WHO HATE GOD’S WORD

(THE JESUIT’S!)

TRANSLATE THE BIBLE WRONGLY ON PURPOSE.


David W. Daniels (Author) told this story: “Once upon a time there was a missionary in a far-off land.

He cared about the people there. He wanted them to know the gospel. So he began translating the Bible into their language the way he had been taught.


But when he came to Luke 15 he came to a problem. “These people don’t know what a sheep is,” he said. “They have never seen one. How do I teach them the parable of the lost sheep, if they don’t know what a sheep is?”

Then he remembered his training. “I need to do one of two things. I could teach these people about “sheep” and make up a new word for it in their language.

Or I could find a dynamic equivalent for sheep in their culture.” He decided the second was easier. And so he found an animal the people cared for like a sheep: a guinea pig.


And so he translated the Bible, finding dynamic equivalents wherever he thought he needed to. “I don’t need to teach these people all about Israel, the Hebrews and their culture,” he thought. And finally he published this “Bible” and gave it to the people.

They loved their Bible and read from it often. Some even became Christians and moved away to a school to learn more.
One day a student returned to his family and confronted the missionary.

“Why did you change the Bible?” he demanded. “The Bible doesn’t have guinea pigs and jungles, you liar!”

“But I thought you wouldn’t understand,” replied the missionary.

“No! You told us lies about what God said!

How can we ever trust you again?” So the people no longer believed the missionary. All his work was ruined and he went home in disgrace.


There are only two ways to bring the gospel to people. You can tell them God’s words and help them to understand what they mean. Or you might change the truth to make it easy for them and hope they never find out

(THIS IS WHAT MOST OF THE NEWER VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE HAVE DONE ).

But if you do, what will you do when they know it’s not true? “
THIS IS TRUTH, DON’T TRY TO FIX WHAT AIN’T BROKE,IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT’S JOB TO TEACH , HE CAN “TRANSLATE IDEAS BETTER THAN ALL THE GREAT SCHOLAR’S COMBINED”


Are the Scriptures just the “ideas” of God, or are they the very WORDS of God?

You decide!


God promises to preserve His words.


“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

(Psalms 12:6-7)


“You shall not add or take away, says God.
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

(Deuteronomy 4:1-2)


“God cares about every one of His words.
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

(Proverbs 30:5-6)


God’s words will never pass away.


“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God)”

(Mark 13:31)


God will curse those who change His Word.


“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

(Revelation 22:18-19)


“The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine They shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables”

(II Tim. iv, 3, 4).


“Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them”

(Acts xx, 30).


“There shall be false teachers among you and many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom, the way of truth shall be evil spoken of”

(II Pet. ii, 1, 2).


“Try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world”

(I John iv, 1).


“Their word will eat as doth a canker”

(II Tim. ii, 17).

“All nations deceived”

(Rev. 18, 23).


“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

(Isaiah viii, 20).


It has become fashionable, under various learned sanctions (Those who believe they know more than God about what his word SHOULD SAY.), to question (Translated: Attack ) the authenticity of these books, while admitting (Aren’t they nice?) the possible genuineness of the remaining portions of the Sacred Record.

Without attempting to discuss the question, I state that it is impossible to reconcile this attitude with allegiance to Christ.

You cannot reject Moses while accepting Christ.

Christ endorsed the writings of Moses. He said to the Jews by the mouth of Abraham in parable:

“They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke xvi, 29, 31).

It is also recorded that when he appeared incognito to two of his disciples after his resurrection, “beginning at MOSES and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself”

(Luke xxiv, 27).

Further, he said, “Had ye believed MOSES, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But IF YE BELIEVE NOT HIS WRITINGS, HOW SHALL YE BELIEVE MY WORDS?”

(John v, 46, 47).

If Christ was divine, this sanction of the Pentateuch by him settles the question; if the Pentateuch is a fiction, Christ was a deceiver, whether consciously or otherwise.

There is no middle ground. Moses and Christ stand or fall together.

If you DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE TO BE THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD THEN HOW CAN YOU EXPECT GOD TO GIVE AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS IN LIFE?

Therefore your questions are simply lame attempts at deversion!

God requires FAITH in order to receive anything from him,have faith in the source of God’s answers and they WILL FLOW LIKE A RIVER…THAT’S A PROMISE!!


I could go on for DAYS about this ONE theme but,suffice it to say that the word of God is trustworthy no matter what Atheists pull out of their EMPTY ARGUMENTS to the contrary.

AN EX-ATHEIST’S GOSPEL


Concepts and Scripture that can be understood outside of the faith.

Original Sin:

Man is born with a selfish nature. If two babies are in a playpen with one Gerber biscuit, the cage match that follows would put Jesse Ventura to shame.

Psalm 14:1-3 & Psalm 53:1-3

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God…” ; there is no one who does good. Note how these two passages link non-belief to an assertion that no man does good.

Could it be that the idea of God is dismissed because many believe that, if God and heaven are true, they are good enough to be admitted into heaven on their own merit?

Genesis 18:32; Then Abraham said,

“May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten righteous men can be found there?

” God answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy Sodom.”

If God couldn’t find 10 righteous men in all of Sodom, what are the chances that He would find you as righteous?

If your every thought could be made audible for all to hear, would those who heard your thoughts still consider you to be a good and righteous person?

Conviction

Ezekiel 28:

In the pride of your heart, you say,

“I am a god…” But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god.

You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.

Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.

So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings…All who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.”

Do you remember your morality as a child?

How black and white everything was and how idealistic you were in your standards?

At what point did you begin breaking your own standard?

At what point did you begin lowering the standard?

Why?

Jesus Really Died for Us, for you personally:

Isaiah 53:

“He was pierced for our transgressions.”

You Be The Judge:

Luke 2:34-40

“This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.”

Mark 8:29

“Who do you say I am?”

Our answer to this question says more about us than it does about Jesus. Jesus is presented to us as a perfect sinless and holy standard.

If we judge Him to be only a man, we are in effect saying that, we, as men, are capable of reaching that standard.

If we find fault with Jesus, how much more at fault are we?

By judging Jesus to be one with God, as God, we admit that we are incapable of reaching the high standard; we are asking God to grade us on a curve, because we know that we have no hope of passing the test on our own merit.

Salvation:

John 16:27

“For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God.”

John 3:3

“I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

By dying,

He taught us the meaning of self-sacrifice;

He taught us how to die to ourselves.

In rising,

He allowed us to be born again,

so that we could live for others and overcome our selfish nature.

What is Truth?:

How does a person know that the color red is real?

Because they see it. How does a person know that God is real?

Romans 10:17;

“Faith comes from hearing the Word of Christ.”

John 18:37;

“Everyone that is of the truth, heareth my voice.”

Mark 7:16;

“If any man has ears to hear, let him hear.”

1Corinthians 2:14;

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

This reminds me of the Harley-Davidson motto:

“If I have to explain, you wouldn’t understand.”

Why Am I Not Hearing The Truth?:

The world makes people either too big to fit through the narrow gate, or too small and weak to push it open. I was of the former variety, having made myself too big-headed to see God’s truth. These verses probably won’t apply to anyone of the latter condition.

1Corinthians 1:19

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

1Corinthians 3:18-19;

“Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a fool so that he may become wise…He catches the wise in their craftiness.”

An intelligent person can comprehend and disassemble meaning in the written word.

But the message of salvation is written in the living word,

which can’t be torn down by the logic of men.

An ATHEIST ESSAY IN FULL CONTEXT: Get ready to be Shocked!

RUNNING AT THE BATTLE!!! THIS IS THE DAVID PRINCIPLE OF WARFARE! “The following was written by Charlotte and was previously posted in her own “Theists Suck” [ Catchy Name! ] website which is no longer in existence. She gave permission to freely copy and distribute her essays, they are not copyrighted.This is from the Evil Bible.com web-site.”
Some of this WILL BE offensive to “Theist’s” but in the interest of FULL FAIRNESS TO THE ATHEIST ARGUMENT, I MUST PUT THIS IN FULL CONTEXT: PLEASE I ASK ALL BELIEVER’S TO READ THIS WITH AN OPEN HEART TO THE PAIN BENEATH THIS MOTHER’S HEART. THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THIS PERSON ARE “REAL PROBLEMS” THAT DESERVE REAL ANSWERS. I WILL TAKE THIS LETTER APART IN SMALL SECTIONS AT A TIME TO EXPLAIN THEM FROM GODS POINT OF VIEW!
I DON’T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT THE GOD I SERVE LOVES THIS WOMEN JUST AS MUCH AS HE DOES YOU, SO I WOULD ASK THAT NO ONE ENGAGE IN “HATE SPEECH OF ANY TYPE” THAT WOULD ONLY EMBOLDEN HER SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT AND DEFAME OUR SAVIOURS NAME.
{What is CONTEXT?: The general series or composition of a discourse; more particularly, the parts of a discourse which precede or follow the sentence quoted; the passages of scripture which are near the text, either before it or after it. The sense of a passage of scripture is often illustrated by the context. }
I WILL POST HER ESSAY IN FULL CONTEXT SO THAT MY RESPONSE IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE ATHEIST SIDE , IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT MOST ATHEISTS & CHRISTIANS ATTACK RATHER THAN “KNOW CONTEXT” BUT I WILL IN NO WAY PROPAGATE THE SAME SHAMEFUL PRACTICE, SO HERE IS THE COMPLETE LETTER, UNINTERRUPTED! [ Hardest thing for me to do, but it’s necessary ]
PRAY FOR HER AND THOSE WHO OPERATE THIS WEB-SITE TO FINALLY SEE THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL IN FULL!
{ ALL EMPHASIS IN THE TEXT IS MINE,OTHERWISE IT IS AS IT APPEARED THERE! }
“Why I Am Not A Christian:

Introduction:

“This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian. There are several reasons for my atheism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data. The second of which is I do not find the state of the world in accordance with an idea of a loving and merciful higher power. Then of course there is the factor that the basis of this essay shall be about; I do not find the Biblical God fit for worship. Over the course of this essay there will be some times when I will speak as if I believe in the Bible, when in fact I do not.
I plan to examine the Bible with critical inquiry. This essay will not be based upon scientific facts and how they disprove the Bible. It shall be an application of my emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice. I hope to explain more clearly why the God depicted in the Bible violates my idea of a moral being. This shall be done over a series of topics. Each pointing out how Jehovah is undeserving of my worship. I will utilize Biblical verses to support my claim as well as what I consider to be logical reasoning.
Now would be the time to ask you to please take out your bibles for consultation. (I personally prefer the NIV or KJV) I will only cite the verse and a brief over view. I do not have the space to write out the verse in its entirety. I especially don’t wish to spew out so much information that I run the risk of overloading those people who dislike reading. (Funny, it’s conflicting here, isn’t it? We are on-line, in a purely textual world, and people still have the audacity to complain about reading.) In the case that you dislike reading on-line essays, I recommend you print this out and thumb through it at your convenience.
Hell:
Hell, of course, is the mother of all of my problems with the bible. It is perhaps the most despicable and hideous of all of the Christian God’s crimes. Indeed, the cruelest of all concentration camps. (Certainly far worse than the ones created by the Nazis.) Described biblically as the “lake of fire”, “the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth” Jesus said in Mark 9:42-48 That it is better to commit suicide or self maiming then to be delivered unto hell. So, according to the bible I assume that all here can agree that there is an existence of hell, and that hell is the worst of all circumstance. Knowing this, let me indulge you as to why the existence of hell paints the Christian God as not fit for worshiping.
I am a moderately compassionate individual, rational, moral, and nurturing. Most of all I am a creator, a mother. I propose this to you, a human question. Can all here, Christian or atheist, safely say that if there is a God, he is our greatest thought magnified? Whatever emotion we feel as human, being created in his image, God is infinitely more feeling? For he is the creator of all things created, I believe this concept is pretty safe to assume. With this being so, my love for my daughter must be a fraction of God’s love for his children. Speaking as a mother, I can safely say that if my child were to commit the greatest harm upon me tomorrow, I would never wish her harm. Why? Simply because she is my creation.
If my daughter were to maim me, slander me, etc. I would still love her, for my instinct and emotion demands of me to protect and care for her regardless of her actions, much like all rational beings (animal kingdom included). So now I pose the question, why then would God condemn us to hell for something as menial as lack of faith? If he is not infinitely more so loving then me, why would hell even exist? Any true loving being would never condemn his own children to everlasting torment, especially one that proclaims himself to having the very essence of forgiveness.
But “God Is Just” You Claim:
Most Christians have responded to this statement with the following rationalization. “God can not let all of his creations into heaven because he is just.” I ask in rebuttal to this, since when is justice more important than love in the heart of a parent? Is hell even justice, or is it simply cruel and unusual punishment? The bible states the system of justice very simply. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There is also another variation of that system with the biblical verse “eye for an eye”. The Christian God violates his own system of law when he damns his creations to eternal suffering for sins as menial as theft or blasphemy. I hardly think, nor would any logical person, that throwing someone into a gnashing jaw would be justly befitting of nearly any crime. (With the exception of murder, and even so, eternal punishment is pretty excessive.)
Most courts of law would take custody of your child from you just for an excessive spanking. We as a people enacted these laws, for we thought them to be logical. Is God above logic, or what we deem as compassionate behavior? After all he pitches a majority of his children into a lake of “fire and brimstone.” How many of us would want a parent such as that? Anyone of us would immediately sever our ties with such an abusive person. Yet Christians knowingly continue the insanity of giving worship to a God so cruel!”

I MUST BREAK IN HERE TO PRESENT AN ARTICLE BY A FORMER ATHEIST ABOUT THIS PART OF HER ARGUMENT:

THE FALSE ANALOGY OF COURTROOM RULES OF EVIDENCE

by A.S.A. Jones
Why is it illogical to think that a Christian needs to ‘prove’ that the resurrection and other miracles happened, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, in order to see these beliefs as legitimate? See how David Hume’s advice that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ can have embarrassing results.
SHOULD CHRISTIANS HAVE TO ‘PROVE’ THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IN ORDER TO REASONABLY HOLD THOSE BELIEFS?
Let’s examine the idea that criminal court rules of evidence should be applied to claims of the miraculous based on high stakes or consequence involving the belief of the miraculous.
Obviously, the analogy is impractical because one cannot remove the rules of evidence from the entirety of the judicial process and expect a fair trial. Before a skeptic can claim that only the rules of evidence, as presented in criminal court cases, should apply to belief in God’s existence, he must be willing to agree to the following:
1) An impartial judge

2) An impartial jury

3) An examination of all of the claims that are said to result in God belief, including philosophical, societal, psychological, scientific arguments in addition to an examination of historical and experiential claims.

If skeptics insist on Christians using the rules of evidence as found in criminal law, then they can’t expect us to take them seriously when they present themselves as the sole juror, prosecuting attorney, and judge.
But there is a more compelling point of contention that demonstrates the falsity of the analogy; the criminal court rules of evidence are artificial constructs designed to minimize the convicting of the innocent. In order to prevent a wrongful conviction, by which the defendant would suffer the consequence of incarceration, the defendant is given the benefit of the doubt ; he is innocent until proven guilty and he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As the following will demonstrate, the simple actions of a man cannot be adequately compared to complex beliefs or belief structures.
Proposal #1
Skeptics claim that the reason why Christians must validate their beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt is because the consequence of belief may be negative (As if going to Hell were not negative as a result of failing to follow God!); it may result in war or dispute or restrictive moral legislation. Since the consequences involve high stakes, the criteria for evaluating the validity of the belief in question, must be of the highest caliber, that being the rules of evidence as is found in criminal court proceedings. In this particular proposal, the belief, or miraculous event, must be proven true, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to avoid an undesirable consequence (war or dispute).
The comparison to a criminal case is thus: The Christian assumes the role of the prosecution, having to prove that God is real beyond a reasonable doubt, in order that the skeptic, who assumes the role of the defendant, will not be wrongfully sentenced to an undesirable consequence.
Proposal #2
However, a Christian may counter-argue that the consequence of belief is salvation or an orderly society, and that the consequence of non-belief is damnation or immorality and anarchy. In this proposal, the miracle or belief does not assume the role of the prosecution, but the role of defendant.
The comparison to a criminal case is thus: The Skeptic assumes the role of the prosecution, having to prove that God is not real beyond a reasonable doubt, in order that the Christian, who assumes the role of the defendant, will not be wrongfully sentenced to an undesirable consequence.
Examine the comparison:
CLAIMS OF WRONGDOING

Error in interpreting the evidence could

result in the _________ going to jail.

The error would be in thinking that X

[the defendant murdered a person] is true

when in fact the negative of X is true.

CLAIMS OF GOD/MIRACLES

Error in interpreting the evidence could

result in the _________going to Hell.

The error would be in thinking that X

[God isn’t true] is true when in fact the

negative of X is true.

Therefore, in order to minimize the error, the evidence that attempts to prove X true must be of the highest standard, that being the criminal court rules of evidence. Fill in the blanks. In a criminal court case, the plaintiff is not the one who is at risk for sentencing. Also, it is the prosecution that attempts to assert the truth of X, not the defense, since the establishment of the truth of X is what sentences the defendant to the consequence.

What the analogy is actually proposing is that the evidence that would free the defendant from the consequence should be subject to the highest standards, while the evidence that could sentence the defendant should be subject to the lowest standards, that being the introduction of a reasonable doubt that the negative of X is true. In other words, in the second proposal, the skeptic is indeed suggesting that a defendant be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Immediately, we begin to see the complexity that is involved when we try to equate beliefs with the criminal actions of men. When we attempt to put a belief on trial, there are any number of ways to design the case; some cases will have the belief as the plaintiff, others will have it take on the role of the defendant. Since the criminal court rules of evidence give the benefit of innocent until proven guilty to the defendant and place the task of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the plaintiff, how are we to decide which role the belief should assume, given that we have just made cases that demonstrate that the belief can assume either one?
What happens when we attempt to put other beliefs on trial, such as evolution? Can we logically say that ‘evolutionary beliefs should be held to criminal standards of evidence because belief in evolution carries with it the consequence of racism’?
Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than whites, and “The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens”. http://www.cstnews.com/Code/BasisForRacism.html
In view of the above, should the belief of evolution have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before it can be considered legitimately true?
Now we are not only arguing for the validity of the belief, we are also having to prove that the belief itself is the cause of some undesirable consequence. There is no doubt that any beliefs that cause passion, also cause dispute. In that respect, evolution is as guilty as Christianity. However, dispute, in and of itself, is not a crime. But what if the dispute results in an atrocity or a crime? A skeptic will claim that religious disputes cause war and a religionist will say that the atheist agendas of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung also caused war. Just as a skeptic will argue that atheism and evolution can be misused to support political agendas, so will a Christian argue that Christian faith can also be misused. After all, it would be difficult to make a case that Christianity is being used properly by those who initiate dispute and warfare, given that it instructs its followers to ‘love one another’, and to ‘love your enemy’, and to ‘live peaceably among other men’.
So the main points are as follows:
1) Beliefs are more complex than the actions of men and cannot properly be ‘tried’ according to criminal rules of evidence.

a. Beliefs alternately would assume the roles of both plaintiff and defendant, depending on the construction of the argument.

b. The standards of evidence for plaintiff and defendant are in opposition to each other.

i. The plaintiff must prove its claim true beyond a reasonable doubt.

ii. The defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2) Variations among individual’s beliefs within a belief system should not subject the entire belief system to ‘sentencing’.

a. Some evolutionists use evolution to promote racism.

b. Some Christians use the Bible to promote war.

3) There is no logical reason why beliefs of a religious nature should be subject to the rules of evidence of criminal court, while beliefs of a non-religious nature should be immune.
Conclusion: Court room analogies fail to give reason why the religious belief should assume the role of plaintiff. While the person making any claim thereby becomes the claimant and has upon him the burden of proof, to be a claimant is not synonymous, nor can it properly be compared, with being the plaintiff. Thus, one who makes a claim outside of the context of a court of law or a lawsuit, does have the burden of proof, BUT that proof needn’t be subject to the high standard of the rules of evidence of criminal court in order to be considered reasonable or legitimate; there is no logical basis for requiring that claims of a religious nature be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be considered justified.
WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD SUFFICE IN EVALUATING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?
The proper standards for determining the validity of miraculous claims are the same standards of evidence that are already established and used to evaluate the validity of ordinary, non-miraculous claims.
I consider Hume’s assertion that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ to be unreasonable. Hume defines a miracle as that which violates the laws of nature. He then suggests that no human testimony could ever be ‘reliable’ enough to outweigh our confidence in the laws of nature. In short, he is either saying that no miracles ever occur, or if they do, they should never be believed.
First of all, I disagree with Hume’s definition of what constitutes a miracle and I do so based on the reaction of primitive mindsets to modern technology. People claim that a miracle has happened when something ‘appears’ to violate the laws of nature and when it is not within their intellectual capacity to give a natural explanation for the alleged event. An ignoramus who observes a metallic ball suspended in midair may think that he is eyewitness to the supernatural. He doesn’t understand that the ball’s suspension is the result of a magnetic field.
I would argue that a miracle is that which ‘appears’ to violate the laws of the nature and that relies upon the absence of knowledge by which it can be explained in order to maintain its classification as a miracle. Therefore, ‘miracles’ need not violate any laws of nature in order to be classified as such.
Secondly, there is a degree of folly in Hume’s suggestion that no amount of human testimony can be considered reliable enough to validate that a ‘miracle’ has taken place. For example, despite public demonstrations and eyewitness testimonies, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by most American scientists.
The scientific community viewed heavier than air flight as a violation of natural laws; to fly would be a miracle. But hundreds of Americans were witnessing the miracle of flight long before scientists came up with equations that would validate it as a possibility. Yet according to Hume, American scientists were totally reasonable in dismissing the legitimacy of the flights, because no human testimony could be considered reliable enough to validate such a claim. That’s right! The ignorant masses had accepted air flight as a demonstrable reality, while the scientific elite walked around for an entire year, pompously dismissing it as an utter impossibility.
In view of the above, and other instances that I won’t take the time to print here, it can be said that human testimony, concerning allegations of the miraculous, should at least be subject to the same evaluations of human testimony regarding the mundane, if only to open the door into further inquiry.
Let us not forget that there are different courts of law with different rules, depending upon the nature of the claims. There is no ‘law’ stating that proof of miracles has to be tried according to criminal procedure. For example, our country has civil court. In civil court, one only has to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts are probably true. However, unless a miracle results in a bid for financial damages, I don’t see why it should be held to the stringent rules of evidence found in civil proceedings no more than those found in criminal proceedings. Keep in mind that because criminal court rules of evidence are so stringent, the amount of evidence necessary to result in a conviction, need not necessarily negate the probability of guilt. For example, OJ Simpson was declared ‘not-guilty’ by criminal law standards, but guilty in the civil court. In other words, he is considered ‘guilty’ (he DID commit the crime), ‘not proven’. By the same logic, religious beliefs may be considered true (i.e., the miracle DID happen), not proven.
Practically speaking, every day we apply the general rules of evidence in our decisions that lead us to what we will, and will not, believe. For example, your trusted friend is dating a bug exterminator, who seems like an honest, and well balanced person. Your friend tells you not to eat at a certain restaurant because her boyfriend says it is infested with cockroaches. In a court of law, this evidence would be inadmissible; it would be hearsay, and so you would have to dutifully disregard it. But in reality, you take this piece of information and conclude that you will never eat at the restaurant again, unless, of course, the hot wings are THAT good!

In real life, and beyond the artificial constructs of a court of law, we depend a great deal upon eyewitness testimony and hearsay in order to form our belief structure. What separates the gullible from the prudent is the following set of evidential rules:

1) Confidence that an eyewitness, a reporter of hearsay, and the one reported to have said the hearsay, is honest, trustworthy and reliable.
Much of what we believe depends upon the character of the person making the claim or allegation. This is why a defense attorney attempts to discredit witnesses by trouncing upon their character. It is reasonable to believe those who have a reputation for honesty; it is gullible to believe those who are known liars.
A subset of this rule is establishing a lack of incentive that would cause an otherwise honest person to lie. If the person has something to gain by making the claim, there is a chance that he has lied in order to benefit himself. If the person stands to lose by making the claim, the probability of him lying decreases.
2) Corroboration amongst witnesses and other evidences.
If one person tells you that they saw a UFO (and by that, I mean just that, an unidentified flying object – I’m not making a case for alien life) hovering above the mall on Friday night, you may dismiss it as a trick of that person’s visual perception. If two dozen people report it independently of each other, at the same time, I’d say that would be reasonable evidence to believe that a UFO of some type was in the area. When the mall reports scorch marks on its roof the next morning, I’d say it would be unreasonable to not believe at that point!
3) Upon close examination, there is an absence of evidence to the contrary.
While it may be considered acceptable to believe in the probability of something being true with little supportive evidence, it would be unreasonable to persist in believing something when there is a preponderance of evidence that indicates that it is untrue.
For example, crop circles and BigFoot used to be subjects of semi-serious speculation, until hoaxers came forward and demonstrated how they made the crop circles and faked BigFoot footprints.
4) There should be evidence that one would reasonably expect to find, dependent upon the nature of the claim.
For example, one can’t expect to find dental evidence in a case involving a missing body, or evidence of semen in a rape victim who reports the crime a week later. We wouldn’t expect to find scientific evidence involving a case concerning which tenant defaulted on paying the rent.
5) Personal experience is used as evidence for our beliefs, realistically speaking.
In 1938, a woman discovered a coelacanth, a primitive fish that was thought to have been extinct for over 65 million years, in a fish market. Had the fish escaped her possession and had she not been able to present it to a scientist, her claim to have seen the extinct fish would have remained unfounded; she would not have been in a position to convince others of her discovery. However, we are in no position to deny the woman her experience, and we may believe or disbelieve her claims, based on what we know of her character.
These 5 general rules of evidence are what we use in our daily evaluations of claims and I see no reason why claims of miracles should be treated any differently.”

NOW to continue with the Atheist Letter!

“Free Will”, You Say?

“It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not. How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences? That completely conflicts with the definition of free. If I were to hold a gun to your head and say “you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you.” Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter? Of course not. Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self-defeating. Call it Circumstantial Will, for that is what it truly is.
Despite this, I have still had the displeasure of debating with those Christians who accept hell as a rational and fair wrath of God. They defend Jehovah’s creation of hell with the opinion that those who are committed to hell go voluntary, as if it is a consequence rather than a punishment. That indeed, we as children of God, chose rather to be hell’s inmates then God’s disciples in heaven. It’s an interesting idea. However, you don’t have to hurt anyone to get into Hell. All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior. It doesn’t’t matter how virtuous you are, how much good you do, how happy an environment you create for others. Given this, the voluntary entry argument doesn’t’t make sense. The same argument could be used to justify the sending of Aryan opponents of Nazism to concentration camps: they voluntarily chose not to give homage to Hitler, so they chose to be interred. Why should we blame the Nazis for the inmates’ choice? Why should we blame God for the choice of the damned?
Genocide:
I hear a lot from Christians about God’s “infinite compassion and mercy”.
Instead of harping on me about something so apparent, they should go tell it to the Midianites. (Please open your Bibles to Numbers 31) The following verses are a classic example of wholesale slaughter and rape under the direction of the same God they claim to be so merciful. A quick sample of this tale: On the way to the promised land, God had Moses wage a war campaign against the Midian. Moses was told to put every Midianite to death, plunder anything of value, set fire to their towns where they lived and all their encampments. Moses gave the orders to his troops (the sons of Israel) and went on a further campaign. On the return of his troops Moses was enraged with the commanders of the army. He said, “Why have you spared the life of all the women and children? You are to kill all the children and kill all the women who have slept with a man. The lord says spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves, so that we may multiply into a great nation.” Yes, friends, this is biblical infinite mercy and compassion for you. I particularly like the way that Moses got upset with them for sparing women and male children, but allowed the young girls to be kept for later raping.
I have had some Christians proclaim that these Midianite girls were not taken for raping but marriage. How ridiculous! If you continue further in the scripture you will find that marriage to a Midianite was a crime against God. A man named Zimri, broke the law and married a Midianite woman this angered God so he sent a plague among the Hebrews. Fortunately, a zealous son of Israel speared Zimri right through the genitals, and the plague went away. So now I ask you, if you could not marry a Midianite, just what were these “virgin woman who were to help multiply” good for?
I don’t think the first-born in Egypt during the captivity would have agreed with the verdict of compassion and mercy either. (Exodus 11:5 & 12:29) First of all, Jehovah is the one who purposely hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he would not let Moses and the Jews go. God messed with someone’s free will. God could have even ported the Jews out of captivity without bloodshed, or put the Egyptians to sleep while they left, but no. God decided to set up a situation in which he knew he would have to punish the Pharaoh. Though this he didn’t even do. He punished the children instead. Judging from God’s previous actions, killing innocent children is much more his forte.
Lastly, please attempt to read the entire book of Joshua some evening. It is a long sequence of atrocities. I have not given all these quotes for space reasons. I urge you to look them up for yourself. Especially for Christians who are not familiar with the bible. It will leave you not only shocked and in question of just what you are worshiping, but it will give a new definition to all morality you claimed was a derivative of God. If by some chance you read Joshua and you are still compliant with the loving notion of God, I suggest you re- evaluate your code of ethics.
Here is the place I will now speak of common rationalizations used for this slaughter. I have discovered via my discussions that there are two major forms: the corruption argument and the mercy argument. The former says that those slaughtered were evil and deserving of their fate; the latter says that since they were religiously incorrect, it was a mercy to terminate their existence.
The corruption argument simply does not hold up. The people slaughtered in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless (with a few exceptions, of course for instance, the Sodomites violated the conventions of hospitality.) Usually, no justification is offered beyond the fact that since they were of another tribe, it was OK to kill them. It goes without saying that the hordes of slaughtered children were innocent. (*Quick tip-If God was anti-abortion he wouldn’t have ordered the murder of pregnant women and young children.)
As to the mercy argument: If I don’t claim to be suffering, and don’t ask to die, neither you nor any god has the right to decide that you know better. (This would of course be a violation of my free will.) If a person tried to do this to me, I would quite frankly attempt to kill him; if a god tried, well, the only weapon I would have would be withholding my worship. Are you beginning to see why I do not comply with the worship of the Christian God?
Neglect:
Most of us, given omnipotence, would be able to do a far better job than Jehovah. What would you do if given omnipotence? If your answer is anything other than “abolish world hunger, disease or save the earth”, there’s something more than a little skewed in your perception of mankind. There is no question that the very balance of life is in peril. To wish for these things doesn’t’t take “infinite mercy”, just normal compassion and a bit of common sense. God’s supposed infinite mercy is apparently the same thing as no mercy at all.
What makes this particularly unforgivable is that even Jesus’ own standards demand feeding of the poor. See Matthew 25:35, in which it is stated that the blessed feed the hungry, and that the damned do not. I find it funny that God is held blameless, though, for not feeding them. Does not the old saying “practice what you preach” apply to God? Is his lack of action, an hypocrisy or a sin? Could it perhaps be both?
Usually, when I bring this up in a discussion, someone says, “No. It is the evil of men that is to blame; they have lots of money and keep it to themselves rather than feeding the poor.” (Funny thing that the Christians who say this are usually conservative.) This argument uses a double standard. Men are held guilty for not feeding the poor, while God is held innocent for doing exactly the same. In fact, it would be far easier for God to feed all the poor with his omnipotence, than for any mortal man to feed even one! Mankind is certainly not blameless here, but it is Jehovah who is the true villain.
Another popular rationalization is that life without “challenges” would be boring and dehumanizing, so God does not remove them. The fallacy here is grouping all challenges together. I personally lead a very challenging and satisfying life, but I have not lately had to flee any volcano’s or earthquakes, go without food for a week, or suffer the ravages of some disease. I would be quite happy, in fact, if I never do have to face such challenges as those. There is plenty of room for amelioration of the human condition without making it dull. Does it not defeat the purpose of living life if you are to starve to death?
Faith Is Required To Know God:
Suppose you were an omnipotent god, and you demand worship, such as the Christian God. Would you give proof of your existence to those who wished to follow you? I imagine for Jehovah that it would be quite simple to perform a continual sequence of verifiable miracles. It would be quite logical in practice too, for it would keep God’s followers from delusion and doubt. There is no such luck with Jehovah though. He demands absolute fidelity without any demonstration of his existence. The only so-called record of his existence is the bible. I think it pretty much goes with out saying that not only is the bible 2,000 years out dated, but it is also very unoriginal. Any Christian who proposes that the bible is indeed evidence for God’s existence is proposing a double standard. For there are many books which claim to be actual accounts of a higher power. With this in mind, why not believe in Allah from the Koran? Could it be because your faith is what determines your belief and not your so-called “factual” book?
Let’s examine what faith is. The definition of faith is hope for a circumstance or thing that is not proven to be true. {NOT TRUE AT ALL} There is no virtue in accepting something on faith, since it may very well be false, and it is clearly not virtuous to believe the false. Faith has also been proven throughout history, time and again, that it is equivalent to massive hysteria; IE: Crusades, Burning Times, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, etc. On a grand scale faith, thus far, has only proven to be an intellectual weakness, and a significant barrier to scientific and moral progress. With all of this in mind, how can God possibly expect us to view faith as the greatest way to glorify him, let alone demand this of us?
Most importantly, the point to remember here is that if we don’t believe in him, we go to Hell, and this is a greater evil than a lack of the “virtue” of faith or a stunting of science, or anything else conceivable. If God is truly concerned about the good, he will do what he can to keep us from Hell, and withholding vital information from us is the exact opposite of this.
God Is The Creator Of Evil:
I am frustrated at two specific verses in the bible, which applies to this particular topic. The first is the biblical statement that “God is the Alpha and the Omega”. Loosely defined it means the beginning and the end, the all-knowing. Which of course implies that all of his actions and the results are fore-known to him. I have a real problem with this notion. For if God was to know ahead of time that someday he would send me to hell for being an Atheist, I ask what was the purpose in him creating me in the first place? Was it simply to watch me be tortured? That seems to be the most logical explanation. I can think of no other rational explanation, nor neither has any Christian who I posed this question to. Some people have attempted to tell me that God has a purpose unknown to us, and that we must simply accept his will. Would you keep a friend who commits evil and offers no self-justification or remorse? Of course not, so why is this same judgment not applied to God? It’s seems rather contradictory that this trait is despised in humanity, yet, it is worshiped in religion.
Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil. Please read Isaiah 45:7. “I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things”. The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil. So how can he then claim to be sinless?
To be more specific, let’s talk about the lord’s creation of evil, let’s talk about the conception of Satan. This being was created and unleashed by God. Jehovah knew (for he is the all knowing) that at the time of Lucifer’s creation he would eventually become Satan, and spend his existence reeking havoc on man kind. Leading people into criminal activities. Suppose I were to build an evil robot, that I knew would go around torturing and murdering people. Whose fault would it be if I let it loose? Mine or the robot’s? Of course it would be mine, for I created it with that purpose and unleashed it for that purpose. Now I ask you, whose fault is deviltry in the world? Is it the PUPPET Satan or the being that deliberately created Satan’s evil?
Now God Plays Switch-A-Roo And Humans Are The Creators Of Evil Not only does the bible imply, but so do many Christians, that we as people are the creator of evil. It is clear for reading the bible that this is untrue, but the speculation still remains. Supposedly, when Adam and Eve fell from grace, they single-handedly brought evil into the world. All you have to do is think logically for a moment, and you will obviously see something is very unjust with this concept. Could any rational being hold a starving infant in Ethiopia responsible for the actions of two long dead people? Or perhaps, would you find it fair to be convicted of Jack the Ripper’s crimes? The connection in both of these instances are not only ludicrous but, disgusting to nod your head at. People who use this argument are simply attempting to rationalize sadism.
I must declare that a Christian that walks into a children’s ward and insists that it is correct that children suffer as a result of the original sin, must destroy themselves of all compassion and mercy. I insist that those who worship the lord knowing this hypocrisy must be as cruel as the Christian God he/she believes in. A complete and utter moral degenerate, taking stabs at protecting their belief system. A person as such would just as easily worship Satan as God in their blindness and faith. For apparently, no amount of evidence could convince him that God was bad once they decided to worship him; their basic assumption is that they are correct, which makes them untouchable by any amount of rationality.
Human Judgment
One of the criticisms most frequently leveled at me when presenting any of the above arguments has been that I have no right to judge God. A pretty feeble grasp at the straws. Christians proclaim that God is the definition of good. All morality proceeds downward from him, so it makes no sense to apply moral standards to him. But I must interject. God allowed my ancestors Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, allowing us “to be like gods, and know the difference between good and evil”. This very biblical verse, written in the first book of Genesis, conflicts with the same argument these Christians attempt to use. If we as humans are now capable of knowing good and evil LIKE THE GODS why can’t we use our judgment? How can it be lower than God’s if God is the one who claimed that we are like him?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that I should not judge God. Well then, would it be fair to hold him up to his own standards? Please consult Matthew 25:41-46 We hear Jesus say: “Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me. . . And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.”
Now, I have never personally seen Jesus feed the hungry nor, have I seen him give drink to those who thirst. But, I do personally see thousands of people die of starvation. I do not recall Jesus dispensing clothes. He has never made me feel welcome, let alone acknowledged. I see the faithful sicken and die on a daily basis. In light of this Jesus himself is the worst of all sinners; if there is no double standard he will be at the head of the line into eternal punishment. He is guilty of every crime of which he accuses the damned.
In Conclusion
I don’t think I could ever complete a whole list as to what I find objectionable regarding the bible. There are many more topics in which to tackle such as sexism, infanticide, homophobia, and the likes. Frankly, I find it too tiresome to go on any further. As I read over all that I have written. I simply wish to close this essay with a very brief summation: I do not believe in the reality of God, except as a psychological phenomenon, but if I did believe I would not worship that horror. It violates my morality to worship an hypocritical, judgmental, self-righteous murderer. In punishment, it could send me to the hell it’s made for those it dislikes, and if there was no other choice but worshiping it, I would walk in proudly.”

That may have been PAINFUL to hear & read, but TRUST ME: To go on through life ignoring HER HEART CRY FOR REAL ANSWERS would be a travesty of Justice unequaled by any Atheist, now I know that she may not ever come to believe it, but that’s in GOD’S HANDS NOT OURS, so stay tuned to read MY response to this letter! A CHALLENGE TO ATHEISM!

How to Witness to an Atheist
by
A.S.A. Jones
When a Christian did the impossible or the outrageous or lived out the extreme philosophy of Jesus Christ, these were the things that caused me to take notice and be offense. No amount of talk about God’s Law could have made any difference with me. The only time that caught my attention was when a Christian acted extraordinarily in the Spirit of the Law.

What is the best way to witness to an atheist?

Live your Christianity, don’t debate it.
Here are some of the Christians who ultimately made a positive impression on me.
BOB

I worked with this mild-mannered, soft-spoken man for ten years. My co-workers and I were in the habit of making snide comments about his participation in anti-abortion marches and his belief in God. He wasn’t overly pushy about his beliefs, but we were ready to call the ACLU if he said, “God bless you,” when one of us sneezed.

When lay-offs came in the mid 90’s, the company we worked for devised a unique way to avoid potential lawsuits. It demanded that the employees vote on a few select co-workers who would then compare and rate the workforce that voted for them. In other words, we were to be judged by our peers. Bob and I and two others were voted out and subsequently lost our jobs right before Christmas. While I deserved to lose my position because my apathy and boredom had compromised my job performance, Bob’s only crime was that of being unpopular. It wasn’t that he had any glaring personality faults; on the contrary, I couldn’t recall him ever saying anything negative about anyone. It wasn’t that his work was inadequate; he plugged away at every task he was given. But he stood for an offensive standard and because of that, he wasn’t one of us and he paid the price.
Unable to admit to my own shortcomings, I became very bitter and very hateful toward the people who I felt had caused me to lose my job. I kept only one friend and we stayed in contact with each other in the months following my dismissal. It was during one of our talks that she mentioned going to a Christmas party at Bob’s house right after the lay-offs. “Bob had a party?” I asked. “Why were you invited?” She then told me that Bob had invited everyone from the lab.
I couldn’t believe it! This guy was in his 60’s and he wasn’t going to bounce back into any comparable employment. He had to know that the only reason he had lost his job was because his co-workers had despised him. I couldn’t imagine him wanting to look at any of them let alone have a party for them. For years, every time that resentment welled up in me, I thought about Bob. How could he forgive them? How?
His action of forgiveness was a source of irritation to me, but eventually it became one piece in the puzzle of Jesus Christ.
6 RESIDENTS OF ST. ANNE’S NURSING HOME

When I was in my 20’s, I went to visit a friend at St. Anne’s Nursing Home. We were seated in the activities room when the staff began wheeling in some of the other residents. These people were pitiable, all confined to reclining wheelchairs, their arms and legs grotesquely bent at odd and unimaginable angles. I had the thought that if I ever found myself in a state as deplorable as theirs, I would rather be dead.

Most were unable to speak or even move their heads, and I was curious to see in what activity these six patients had been assembled to participate. A nurse saw my curiosity, and giving a weak smile said, “They have church every week.” The program director introduced a Baptist choir and, as they sang ‘Amazing Grace’, I watched those men and women in the crippled audience and I was shocked and unsettled to see peace and happiness take over their expressions. Some sat there with frozen smiles while others silently mouthed the words of the hymn, but there was victory in their eyes. At the time, I recall having thought that these people were already in heaven, despite being confined to an earthly hell.
After the choir left, I half-heartedly spoke to the one patient who could still verbalize. “How are you doing?” I asked. She was completely paralyzed and couldn’t even turn her face to see me, but she was glowing.
“Wonderful!” she replied and continued smiling as a nurse wheeled her back to her room.
How could these people be happy? What allowed them to be this way in their tragic affliction while I could barely manage a smile in all my good fortune?

LET IT SHINE

The real power of Christ’s light makes itself known when it shines forth in life’s darkest hours. If we have been given adversity, we have also been given a good opportunity to witness.
It doesn’t take the Spirit of Christ to be nice to nice people, nor does it take any divine spirit to be generous when one has wealth. Show me a poor person who sacrifices his own necessities for the welfare of strangers. Let me see persons who remain kindhearted to people who mistreat them. Show me a person who knowingly passes up a chance to destroy their enemy. When a person does these things, they are not acting according to human nature, but against it. The most valued attributes of mankind do not come naturally to the human animal; character borrows from the divine.
No matter what our situation may be, there will always be a profound way to represent our Lord. Christianity is extreme and we shouldn’t settle for mediocrity or allow our walk to become a shuffling gait. Our best witness is a life lived for Christ!

PART 1 of A RESPONSE TO: Why I Am Not A Christian!

THE ATHEIST MINDSET REVEALED!

Introduction:

“This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian. There are several reasons for my atheism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data.”

Most of this essay is ” Strawman Theology” at it’s best, BUT it is also “Riddled with GOOD QUESTIONS that need VERY GOOD ANSWERS.”

You must be very careful when answering these type of QUESTIONING of PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS A “MENTAL TRAP” to get emotional and Reactive to their “VITRIOL VENOM” of hate speech.

That is exactly why I asked that no one comment on these blogs with “LIKE HATRED OF SPEECH.

” So I will begin where SHE BEGAN…The Idea that REAL SCIENCE does not support a Living & Active God.

WHAT SHE REALLY MEANS IS,THAT EVOLUTION: { The act of unfolding or unrolling. A series of things unrolled or unfolded }DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GOD!

This is true, BUT we must understand what https://ministerofblog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit.php this so-called science is before DISMANTLING IT’S ATHEISTIC PREMISE!

Does everything have a natural cause?

Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause.

However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.

Do skeptics have beliefs?

Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no “beliefs.” However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work.

Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all.

Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments.

ARE YOU JUST MISSING THE OBVIOUS ABOUT GOD? “The Lone Ranger and Tonto are camping in the desert, set up their tent, and are asleep. Some hours later, The Lone Ranger wakes his faithful friend.

“Tonto, look up and tell me what you see.”

Tonto replies, “Me see millions of stars.”

“What does that tell you?” asks The Lone Ranger.

Tonto ponders for a minute.

“Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.

Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo.

Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three.

Theologically, it’s evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant.

Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.

What it tell you, Kemo Sabi?”

The Lone Ranger is silent for a moment, then speaks.

“Tonto, you Dumb Hoss, someone has stolen our tent.”

The above joke is a good lesson in missing the obvious. Chances are that you were surprised by the Lone Ranger’s response. However, the first sentence of the joke tells you that the Lone Ranger and Tonto were camping in a tent. It should have been clear at Tonto’s first response that he was missing the obvious.

Likewise, those who have already decided that God does not exist and that all processes must have a naturalistic explanation, do not see the obvious evidence that the universe was designed, rather than happened by chance.

Rational explanations for the creation of the universe come down to two main possibilities:

“Design by an intelligent being”

OR IT

“Happened by random chance”

What are the differences between the two creators?

Both creators must possess certain characteristics in common, such as being eternal and being transcendent to this universe. However, the naturalistic creator must be “stupid” and must have created our exquisitely-designed universe through some sort of random process.

For some reason, the atheist chooses to believe that the universe arose randomly by the action of a stupid creator called Evolution, instead of seeing the obvious – that a well-designed universe would most likely come into being through the actions of an intelligent designer.

Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:

Designed and put together by intelligent human beings or….

Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced.

Well, its your choice. Have you checked your tent lately? “Improbable things happen all the time” is the mantra of the atheist. It is certainly possible for improbable things to happen. However, it is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained in order for stars and galaxies to exist.

SCIENCE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE “BIG BANG THEORY” Many scientists recognize two facts:

(1) There is no real evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, and….

(2) there is very definite evidence against it. But, complicating the matter, there a strong effort is being made by the establishment to muffle opposition. The following statements will provide you with a better understanding of this.

“The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location or an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place. . .

“Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point.

” `The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,’ says Joseph Silk, `is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.’

“This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinites in other physical contexts. Richard Feynman puts it in this manner:

” `If we get infinity [when we calculate], how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?’ This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms.”—*Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion (1984), p. 415.

“The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed.”—*W.H. McCrea, “Cosmology after Half a Century,” Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

“Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little.”—*G. Burbidge, “Was There Really A Big Bang?” in Nature, 233:36-40.

“This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930’s. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion.

As is well-known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target—a building for example—that anything happens . . But in a big bang there are not targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion.

There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead.”—*Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” in New Scientist, 92 (1981), pp. 521, 523.

THE ATOMIC GAPS The initial Big Bang explosion is said to have produced hydrogen and helium, which, through later explosions, changed into the heavier elements. But the atomic gaps would forbid this from occurring.

“In the sequence of atomic weight, numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8 . . This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea.” —*William A. Fowler, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90 [California Institute of Technology].

“There is no accepted theory as to how the hot gas clouds of hydrogen and helium arising out of the big bang condensed into galaxies, stars and planets. It would seem that the possibility of such a condensation is similar to the probability for all of the air in a room to collect in one corner—just by random motion of the molecules.”—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.

WRONG ELEMENTS

Why is our earth and the other planets full of the heavier elements, whereas the stars are not? This is a mystery the Big Bang theory cannot explain.

“Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they [the heavier elements] amount to only about one percent of the total mass . . The contrast [of the sun’s light elements with the heavy ones found on earth] brings out two important points.

“First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the sun that is normal and the earth that is the freak.

The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector’s piece.” —*Fred C. Hoyle, Harper’s Magazine, April 1951, p. 64.

SUPERNOVA

When large stars explode, they are termed supernovas. Theorists tell us that supernova explosions of Population III stars produced the stars we now have. Yet it is a scientific fact that supernova explosions rarely occur.

“A supernova explodes in an average galaxy only once every 100 years or so.”—*Reader’s Digest Book of Facts (1987), p. 394.

“In a typical nova explosion, the star loses only about a hundred-thousandth part of its matter. The matter it throws off is a shell of glowing gases that expands outward into space . .

“A supernova throws off as much as 10 percent of its matter when it explodes. Supernovae and novae differ so much in the percentage of matter thrown off that scientists believe the two probably develop differently.

A supernova may increase in brightness as much as a billion times in few days. Astronomers believe that about 14 supernova explosions have taken place in the Milky Way during the past 2,000 years. The Crab Nebula, a huge cloud of dust and gas in the Milky Way, is the remains of a supernova seen in A.D. 1054. Super-novae are also rare in other galaxies.”—*World Book Encyclopedia (1971), p. N-431.

“The explosion named Supernova 1987A in February 1987 was the first reasonably close one since the invention of the telescope. [The telescope was invented in 1609; that super-nova occurred in 1604.] . . [Astronomers] estimate that one goes off somewhere in the Milky Way every 50 to 100 years.”—*Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 34.

“Although supernovae may provide enough matter to form some new stars, whether there are enough of them to significantly forestall the [eventual] extinction of the galaxies seems doubtful. In the Milky Way, for instance, stars massive enough to go supernova make up a scant 4 percent of the galaxy’s stars and contain only 11 percent of its total stellar mass.

Many galaxies may be similarly proportioned. Ellipticals, for example, much like the globular clusters at the Milky Way’s outer edges, tend to consist of less massive, slower-burning, and hence, older bodies . . Galaxies are basically dependent on their original supply of gas.”—*Op. cit., 71.

POPULATION-III STARS MISSING

The Big Bang theory requires the existence of a theoretical “Population III star,” yet no such stars exist. (A “Population III star” is theorized to have hydrogen, helium, and essentially no other elements.)

“Are there any stars older than Population-II? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe are correct. The immediate result of the Big Bang is hydrogen and helium with very little, if any, production of heavier elements. To provide the chemical composition observed in Population-II objects requires a previous generation of stars to perform the necessary nucleosynthesis. Such primordial `Population-III’ stars would contain vanishingly small abundances of heavy elements.”—*”Where is Population III?” Sky and Telescope, 64:19 (1982) [Nucleosynthesis”=production of heavier elements by nuclear fusion].

“There appears to be no observation evidence for the existence of true Population III stars in our Galaxy which formed in the denser regions of space, such as the Virgo cluster.”—*J.G. Hills, “Where Are the Population III Stars?” Astrophysical Journal, 258:L67 (1982).

CALCULATIONS ARE TOO CLOSE

Few non-mathematicians realize how narrowly the calculations have been made to arrive at a theoretical Big Bang. (Yet, as we learn from other statements by scientists, the theory is still a failure. There is too much it does not explain.)

“If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been .1 percent less, then the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-2 gm / cm3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars.”—*R.H. Dicke, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.

“The alleged big bang would never have led to an expanding universe at all; rather it would all have collapsed into a black hole.”—Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 198 [referring to *St. Peter’s calculation].

“It seems, for instance, that altering the rate of expansion at the Big Bang very marginally would have made our universe fall to bits too fast or undergo recollapse too quickly for Life to stand a chance of evolving. Persuading expanding gases to form themselves into galaxies of stars and planets requires an adjustment of gravitational and explosive forces quite as delicate as that between the two halves of a pencil in balance on a razor’s edge.

“. . Even as matters stand, it is hard to see how galaxies could have formed in a universe which is flying apart so fast—and an early speed increase by one thousandth would quickly have led to a thousandfold increase. Again, very slight reductions in the smoothness with which matter is distributed . . would apparently have multiplied the primeval heat billions of times with disastrous effects.”—J. Leslie, Cosmology, Probability, and the Need to explain Life,” in N. Rescher, (ed.), Scientific Explanation and Understanding (1983), pp. 53-54.

MISSING MATTER

There is not enough matter in the universe to fit the Big Bang requirements.

” `Most attempts to fit a cosmological model to observations have in fact implied that the total mean density of matter in the universe is much greater (maybe 100 times) than the mean density of luminous matter.’ McCrae says that whether or not the universe contains this `missing mass’ is `perhaps the most important unsolved problem of all present day astronomy.’ “—*W.H. McCrae, quoted in H.R. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.

“Creationists (for example Slusher) have shown that there is insufficient mass of galaxies to hold gravitationally together over billions of years. Evolutionary astronomers have sought to explain away this difficulty by postulating some hidden source of mass, but such rationalizations are failures. Rizzo wrote:

“Another mystery concerns the problem of the invisible missing mass in clusters in galaxies. The author evaluates explanations based on black holes, neutrinos, and inaccurate measurements, and concludes that this remains one of the most intriguing mysteries in astronomy”—*P.V. Rizzo, “Review of Mysteries of the Universe,” in Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150.

EVER OUTFLOWING

The outward-flowing radiation from an initial Big Bang would have kept moving outward forever. The universe should not be filled with anything; it should have all gone outward!

“With no friction in space to stop it, the exploding material from the bang would keep moving onward forever. Eventually most of the universe would again be empty—with the exploded matter off on the edges, still traveling outward. Never packing together, never slowing, it would speed on through frictionless space forever.”—*Richard Johnson, No Way Out (1963), p. 432.

“The farther out into scattered space we look, the further back in time we should be seeing. And as we look farther back in time, we should (according to the current theory) see a more densely packed universe, as it was then much younger. In fact, we find just the opposite. This might be called the Big Bang Paradox, and it shows that the Big Bang Theory cannot be correct.”—A.W. Mehlert, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1983, p. 23 [emphasis his].

STELLAR ROTATION IS TOO RAPID

Many stars rotate too rapidly to have initially collected any nearby gas, much less be formed by compressing gas. By the way, thin hydrogen clouds would not push themselves together, and even if they could— what would start the balls twirling?

“There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of the sun, but it is not condensing. Greenstein of the Mount Wilson Observatory believed that the known stars rotate so fast they could never have been formed by a condensation process.

In fact, many stars have a rotation speed one hundred times that of the sun! With this speed, such stars should not be able to hold on to their surface layers. But if this is happening, how did such stars collapse in the first place? The initial gas clouds should have developed a stable circulation motion without collapsing into stars.”—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 58.

“Greenstein of Mt. Wilson Observatory believes that the `known stars rotate so fast that one must conclude that they could never have been formed by a condensation process.’ “—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 90.

“Spectroscopic study by David Soderblom and John Stouffer of the Harvard-Smithsonian center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., of the Doppler-shifted broadening of spectral lines that rotation causes, confirmed the ultra-fast rotation of 30 percent of the approximately 60 stars they observed in the Pleiades.”—*D.E. Thomsen, “Stellar Evolution Spins a Surprise Stage,” Science News, 125:388 (1984).

SORRY STAR-TREK FANS ANTI-MATTER IS NOT THERE

Whenever matter comes into existence, half of it is our kind of matter and the other half is “antimatter”—which immediately flies to the matter and destroys both. The Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of both, and they would have quickly destroyed one another. Yet the universe has almost no anti-matter.

“Antimatter: Matter made up of antiparticles. Antiparticles are identical in mass to matter particles, but opposite to them in properties such as electrical charge.”—*R.M. Somerville, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), p. 132.

“Antimatter: It is believed that all particles have antimatter counterparts, particles with identical mass and spin as the original but with many other properties (such as electric charge) reversed . . Few such particles exist in nature . . Presently, there is no evidence of antigalaxies.”—*American Institute of Physics, Glossary of Terms Used in Cosmology (1982), p. 2.

“We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter.”—*Victor Weisskopf, “The Origin of the Universe,” in America Scientist, 71 (1983), p. 479.

“What ultimately seems decisive is the difficulty of imagining how matter and antimatter in the early universe could have become segregated into distinct regions. It seems more likely they would have simply annihilated each other everywhere.”—*F. Wilczek, “The Cosmic Asymmetry between Matter and Antimatter,” in Scientific American, December 1980, pp. 82-83.

“The principle is clear, however, and no physicist doubts it. Antimatter can exist.

“But does it exist in actuality? Are there masses of antimatter in the universe?

. . If they encountered ordinary matter, the massive annihilation reactions that result ought to be most noticeable. It ought to be, perhaps, but it is not. Astronomers have not spied any energy bursts anywhere in the sky that can be identified unequivocally as the result of matter-antimatter annihilation.

Can it be, then, that the universe is almost entirely matter, with little or no antimatter? If so, why? Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force that would create one [such as a Big Bang or steady state theory] would have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each.

“This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there; and observation refuses to back it up.”—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 343.

“That the moon and Venus are made of ordinary matter is clear from direct observations. That the solar system in general contains no antimatter follows from the lack of solar-wind induced annihilation gamma rays. An `antiplanet’ [a theoretical antimatter planet], for example, would have been the strongest gamma-ray source in the sky.

Similarly, gamma-ray observations show no nearby star is an `antistar.’ Indeed, that the Galaxy can contain no interesting amounts of antimatter is strongly suggested by the absence of antinuclei in the cosmic rays, by the observations of Faraday rotation, and by the observations of galactic gamma rays.”—*Gary Steigman, “Observational Tests of Antimatter Cosmologies,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14:339 (1976).

“Even more fascinating was the realization—confirmed by a series of experiments during the 1950’s and 1960’s—that the electron-positron relationship is standard in the subatomic world. For each type of matter particle there is an antimatter equivalent that is opposite in electrical charge or some other fundamental property . .

“Although the symmetrical creation of matter and antimatter is common in such experiments, the universe outside the physics laboratory is dominated by matter—an asymmetry cosmologists find baffling.

“The implication was obvious: Extremely energetic processes that create matter should just as easily create antimatter. One such process, of course, was the formation of the universe, in which matter and energy came into being. Given the dynamics of the forces at work shortly after the Big Bang, antimatter should be just as abundant in the cosmos as matter. Where then is it?”—Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.

“Clearly, no antimatter exists in any appreciable amount on Earth; if it did, it would readily come into contact with matter and vaporize [both of them] in huge explosions. And since Earth is made of matter, the Solar System must be also . . As for the entire galaxy, if there are such things as antimatter stars, some would already have gone supernova, pouring vast quantities of antiparticles into the interstellar medium and thereby producing almost constant matter-antimatter annihilations and their telltale bursts of energy.”—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.

UNIVERSE IS TOO LUMPY

Scientists tell us that the universe has “lumps” (stars) and “clumps” (galaxies), when, according to the Big Bang theory, it should be totally smooth (only have floating gas).

“The large-scale distribution of matter is strikingly clumpy; we see stars in galaxies, galaxies in groups and clusters, and clusters in superclusters.”—*P. Peebles, “The Origin of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies,” in Science, 224 (1984), pp. 1385-1386.

“Theorists are particularly disturbed by the growing evidence of large-scale inhomogeneity in the universe’s structure, which conflicts with the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation.”—*Horgan, “Big-Bang Bashers,” in Scientific American, September 1987, pp. 22.

“[The lack of homogeneity] is in fact one of the major unsolved problems of cosmology.”—*Waldrop, “Delving the Hole in Space,” in Science 214 (1981), p. 1016.

“It is questioned whether the homogeneous four-dimensional big-bang model will survive in a universe of inhomogeneous three-dimensional structures.”—*H. Alfven, On Hierarchical Cosmology (1982), p. 24.

“The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a blobally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind. `No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing.’ Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise.

“How then did the lumps get there? No one can say—at least not yet and perhaps not ever. The prerequisite for a cosmos with clusters of concentrated matter is inhomogeneity—some irregularity, some departure from uniformity, some wrinkle in the smoothness of space-time—around which matter, forged in the primordial furnace, can accrete.

“For now, some cosmologists all but ignore this most vexatiousness conundrum. They opt, instead, to take the inhomogeneity as given, as if some matrix of organization, some preexistent framework for clumping somehow leaked out of the primeval inferno into the newly evolving universe. With lumpiness in place, the laws of physics seem to work fine in explaining the evolution of the cosmos we’ve come to know.”—*Ben Patrusky, “Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?” Science 81, 2:96, June 1981.

“Over the last 300 years, we have repeatedly discovered ever-larger inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter: stars, clusters, galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters of groups, and clusters of clusters.”—*R. Oldershaw, “The Continuing Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology,” in Astrophysics and Space Science, 92 (1983), p. 349.

“This peculiarity of the initial state of matter required by the standard [Big Bang] model is called the smoothness problem.”—*Guth and *Steinhardt, “The Inflationary Universe,” in Scientific American, May 1984, p. 119.

BACKGROUND RADIATION

Background radiation and the redshift are said to be two primary “evidences” that a Big Bang occurred.

Background radiation does exist. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth.

“Perhaps the most significant objection to this cosmology [the Big Bang], stems from the presence of the cosmic background radiation.”—*J. Silk, the Big Bang (1979), p. 321.

“The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents . . [But] the claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation.”—*Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis, “Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation,” in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698.

“Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions.

“Not anymore. Five or six years ago we began to hear of a possible dipole anisotropy [two-directional source]. Then at the beginning of 1980 came hints of a quadruple anisotropy . . A quadruple anisotropy [radiation coming at us from four directions, each at right angles to the other] has to belong to the substance of the radiation of the universe itself.”—Science News, 1981.

“The Big Bang theory includes a microwave background . . but this success is tempered by the fact that it was expected to be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than is actually the case.”—*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 181.

“The latest data [on background radiation] differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang cosmologies, the data is ignored.”—*Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” in New Scientist, 92 (1981), p. 522.

“Recent measurements of the density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation show no fluctuations greater than 2.5 parts in 100,000. No galaxy could grow from a fluctuation that small—even in 15 billion years.”—*William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 185.

REDSHIFT

The redshift is said to be the other “evidence” that a Big Bang occurred. But this is not true either. There are three possible explanations to the redshift seen in the spectra of more distant stars, Evolutionists declare that the speed (Doppler) redshift theory is the only cause of the spectral redshift. They say this because, if that is true, then the universe is expanding outward—which they say is caused by an earlier Big Bang.

But there are two other causes of redshifts, which have been proven by science, and these better explain the various oddities associated with red shifts: (1) The tired light redshift: Light gradually slows down as it travels over long distances. (2) The gravitational redshift: Light loses energy as it passes the gravitational fields of stars.

“The year after Sirius B was found to have its astonishing properties, Albert Einstein presented his general theory of relativity, which was mainly concerned with new ways of looking at gravity. Einstein’s views of gravity led to the prediction that light emitted by a source possessing a very strong gravitational field should be displaced toward the red (the Einstein shift). [Walter S.] Adams, fascinated by the white dwarfs he had found, carried out careful studies of the spectrum of Sirius B [a dwarf star] and found that there was indeed the redshift predicted by Einstein.

“This was a point in favor not only of Einstein’s theory but also of the superdensity of Sirius B, for in an ordinary star such as our sun, the redshift effect would be only one thirtieth as great. Nevertheless, in the early 1960’s this very small Einstein shift produced by our sun was detected.”—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 50.

“[Speed or Doppler redshifts] are caused by recession of one object in relation to another, and are similar to the Doppler effect of a car rapidly driving away and causing the sound heard by an observer to shift from treble to bass . . [In contrast] A gravitational redshift is the shift to longer wavelengths of light passing through a large gravitational field.”—*American Institute of Physics, Glossary of Terms Used in Cosmology (1982), pp. 17-18.

“P. LaViolette has compared the tired light cosmology to the sandar [Big Bang-Doppler effect] model of an expanding universe on four different observational tests and has found that on each one the tired-light hypothesis was superior.”—*W. Corliss, “Tired Light Revived,” Science Frontiers, 47:2 (1986).

“Redshift observations are, of course, crucial to our modern view of the evolution of the cosmos. Usually, it is assumed that the observed redshifts are entirely due to the Doppler effects. If this assumption is incorrect, our cosmology [matter and stellar origins theories] must be drastically revised.

“At least five major classes of observations exist which tend to undermine the Doppler-effect assumption: (1) Laboratory measurements of spectral noninvariance; (2) Astonomical redshifts that can be correlated with large-scale mass distributions; (3) General comparisons between Doppler-redshift (expanding universe) cosmologies and cosmologies based on other redshift phenomena, such as `tired light,’ showing the inferiority of the Doppler hypothesis; (4) Observations of redshift differences between objects thought to be at the same distance; and (5) Observations of quantized redshift.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 148.

“When we observe galaxies with redshifts greater than z=1, the redshift-distance relationship tells us we are seeing stellar systems more than 10 billion light-years away. Since the universe is thought to be 16-18 billion years old, these distant galaxies must be only 6-8 billion years old, for we are looking back into time. The anomaly here is that these young galaxies do not seem much bluer than nearby old galaxies, 16-18 billion years of age. One would expect the younger galaxies to be much hotter [bluer] and more active.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 185.

“A massive quantity of data has been accumulated for galactic clusters, galaxy pairs, stars, and other objects, primarily by W.G. Tifft and his colleagues. Although the catalogs of data on galaxies is not suspect, the analysis of those data in a way that supports redshift quantification has not been well-received. Supporting studies by other astronomers would generate more confidence in the reality of this phenomenon . .

“In clusters of galaxies the spirals tend to have higher redshifts than the E galaxies.”—*Halton Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts,” Astrophysical Journal, 230:469 (1980). [This is because the spirals are exerting more gravity on the outflowing light.]

“The concept of an expanding universe hinges on the astrophysicists’ assumption that no change occurs to the galaxies’ photons on their long, undisturbed trip from the galaxies to us.”—Russell Akridge, “The Expanding Universe Theory Is Internally Inconsistent,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 56.

“A photon’s energy loss is counted twice in the Big Bang expanding universe theory: [1] In the Big Bang theory, free photons must lose most of their original energy as they travel for vast times. [2] In the expanding universe theory, free photons must not lose any energy as they travel for vast times. { O.K. MY TURN TO ASK A QUESTION:Which IS IT,MUST or MUST NOT? Talk about “Having your cake & eating it too! }

“A free photon cannot do both at the same time.

“If a free photon loses energy, the Big Bang theory may [or may not] be correct, but the universe is not expanding. However, if the universe is expanding, free photons do not lose energy, because any photon loss is due to the expansion of the universe . . “If either the Big Bang or the expanding universe is true, the other cannot be true. Yet, they are both part of the same evolutionary scheme. Both must be true for either to be true. Therefore, the Big Bang expanding universe theory is false.”—Op. cit., p. 58.

THE HALTON ARP DISCOVERIES

Halton C. Arp, a careful astronomer and astrophysicist, has compiled a remarkable collection of facts which negate acceptance of the speed theory of redshift. But the establishment had him fired for doing so, because his discoveries disprove the expanding universe theory, a primary “evidence” that a Big Bang once occurred.

“The astronomer, Halton Arp, has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts. Occasionally there seems to be a bridge of gas and dust and stars connecting them. If the redshift is due to the expansion of the universe, very different redshifts imply very different distances.”—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), pp. 255.

“In case the thesis of this book is correct, we want to know what the factors are that led to this long, implacable rejection of new knowledge, the wasted effort, and the retardation of progress.”—*Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), p. 5.

“There is massive, incontrovertible evidence for important phenomena and processes . . which we cannot currently understand or explain.”—*Op. cit., p. 2.

“It is of profound importance to recall now that for a number of classes of . . objects, there was never any shred of evidence that they obeyed a Hubble relation . . The assumption that . . objects obeyed a redshift-distance relation sprang simply from the feeling that if one kind of object [Sb galaxies] did, all objects must do so. Such a generalization is an example of the oldest of logical fallacies. Nevertheless, it has become an article of faith despite many examples of contradictory evidence.”—*Op. cit., p. 178.

“As with the statistical association of quasars with galaxies, the implication of physically interacting objects with different redshifts is revolutionary. The redshift distance relationship is a pillar of modern astronomy, and this pillar would be shattered if paired objects had different redshifts.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 100.

“It cannot be stressed too strongly, however, that these discordant redshifts are not discovered in just one or two isolated cases that have no relation to each other. But in every case we can test—large clusters, groups, companions to nearby galaxies, companions to middle-distance galaxies, companions liked by luminous filaments, galaxies interacting gravitationally, chains of galaxies—in every conceivable case, we come out with the same answer: This same discordant redshifts for the same general class of younger, fainter galaxies.”—*H. C. Arp, “Evidence for Discordant Redshifts,” in G. Field (ed.), The Redshift Controversy, p. 54.

“This important result has largely been ignored by astonomers because it does not fit in with the current theoretical framework.”—*H. Arp, “Further Examples of Companion Galaxies with Discordant Redshifts and Their Spectral Peculiarities,” in Astrophysical Journal, 263 (1982), p. 54.

“Twenty-two new quasars close to galaxies are reported. Most of them are so close to companion galaxies that the probability of accidental occurrence is less than 0.01.”—*Halton Arp, Quasars near Companion Galaxies, Astrophysical Journal, 250:31 (1981).

“Burbidge and Arp are upset by what they see as a distressingly one-sided approach to the quasar redshift question by the community of astromoners, `Observational evidence exists on both sides,’ Burbidge argues, `Both sides are probably right. What is unfortunate . . is the great prejudice in the field. Arp’s papers and others—suggesting that some quasars are nearby—are held up, interminably rejected. Heckman’s polemic [calling for recantation] would not be published, were it on the other side.’

“If Heckman’s call for recantation is meant in such `good humor,’ Arp asks angrily, `Why has telescope time been cut off for proponents of the [opposing] viewpoint? { My turn again,THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF ATHEISTIC RULES FOR THE GAME ONLY…AND ANY “RULE” OF SCIENCE THAT DOES NOT FIT THE EVOLUTIONARY FRAMEWORK, AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF “SCIENTIFIC RULES THAT ARE BROKEN,SO THAT THESE HYPOCRITES CAN MAKE A FAKE POINT. }

” `Much is at stake,’ says Burbidge. `If it is accepted that just one large redshift is not due to the universal expansion [expanding universe], Pandora’s box is open. Much of our currently claimed knowledge of the extragalactic universe would be at risk, as would a number of scientific reputations.’ “—*”Companion Galaxies Match Quasars Redshifts: The Debate Goes On,” Physics Today, 37:17, December 1984. [Heckman’s statement, calling for recantation by Arp’s group, is given in *T.M. Heckman, et. al., “Low-Redshift Quasars, et. al.,” Astronomical Journal, 89:958 (1984).]

“Thus, estimates of the size of the observable universe would shrink considerably—perhaps say Wolf, by a factor of 100 or more.”—I. Amato, “Spectral Variation on a Universal Theme,” Science News 130:166 (1986).

“No matter what they might turn out to be, quasars attracted attention most of all because of their apparent extreme distance from Earth. If they are as far away as redshift measurements seem to indicate, then they are remnants of the universe’s very earliest eras and would allow theorists, in effect, to travel back to those epochs.

“Not all astronomers see quasars as time machines, however. A small though vocal minority has argued that since some supposedly distant quasars seem physically associated with relatively nearby galaxies, the redshift rule may not apply universally to all types of extragalactic objects. Striking, as it did, at one of the central pillars of modern cosmology—the redshift evidence of an exploding universe—this hypothesis touched off what had been characterized as one of the most bitter episodes in the history of astronomy.

“At the center of the debate is Halton Arp, the same astronomer who drew up an atlas of peculiar galaxies. Indeed, it was while investigating these extragalactic aberrations that Arp came upon what he believed was evidence for direct ties between some galaxies and quasars. Several Arp photographs show faint bridges apparently linking nearby galaxies with supposedly more distant quasars. Arp therefore argued that the high redshift of these quasars are caused by factors other than distance . .

“The astronomical community reacted harshly and not entirely rationally. Most astronomers dismissed Arp’s views out of hand, suggesting that the supposed connections were optical illusions produced by chance alignments. Some even went so far as to impugn his integrity by remarking that most of the evidence of physical associations between objects of different redshifts came from photographs produced by Arp himself. [In which instance, he gave exact locations; the dissidents could verify the evidence if they had wished to do so.]

“A few eminent supporters, including the renowned astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, made impassioned pleas for everyone to keep an open mind, but to no avail. In 1983, Arp was to suffer the indignity of being barred from the tools of his trade. Caltech’s telescope allocation committee decided that his line of research was not worthy of support and that he would receive no more time for this work at the telescopes of the Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories.

“Arp refused to take up more conventional studies simply to please the committee; instead, he chose to leave Caltech for a position at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, where he continued to pursue his ideas. Referring to his abrupt and ignoble ouster, Burbidge later wrote, `No responsible scientist I know, including many astronomers who were strongly opposed to Arp’s thesis, believes justice was served.’ “—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 67-68.

“In a photograph by controversial astronomer Halton Arp, a large spiral galaxy located relatively near the Milky Way [our galaxy] and a quasar widely assumed to be a billion light-years more distant appear to be physically linked by a bridge of matter. Arp . . believes that the high redshifts may be caused by something other than increasing distances resulting from the expansion of the universe.”—Op. cit., p. 69.

THIS IS A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION,I WILL DO MORE ON “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”IN MY NEXT BLOG! AS YOU CAN SEE,EVOLUTION DOES NOT PLAY FAIR TO OPPOSITE EVIDENCE IN PLAIN SIGHT;BUT I WOULD ASK,IF EVOLUTION IS RIGHT WHY ACT SO JUVENILE?

PART 2 of My response to an Atheist Essay!

Creation in Genesis 1:1 in perspective from the HEBREW.

“Beresh’it bara elohim et hashamayim vaet haeretz vahaeretz tohu bohu vahoshech al penie tehom veruach elohim merehephet al penie hamayim”

In translation:

“In the beginning God created the land and the sky and land was empty and uninhabitable and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the spirit (or wind) of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”

Thus literally begins one of the most debated passages of the Bible.

No matter if you believe the Earth is YOUNG or OLD as Geology suggests!

The Genesis creation account has been the source of great conflict between Christians and the Scientific Community, BUT that conflick believe it or not has NOT BEEN BECAUSE SCIENCE and the BIBLE DO NOT AGREE!

QUITE THE CONTRARY IS TRUE.

It is NOT SCIENCE BUT THE SCIENTISTS THAT ARE AT ODDS WITH THE FACTS OF NATURE and the scientific facts it presents to them because of PRECONCEIVED MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE!

A similar conflict can be seen in church history between Science and the Catholic Church over cosmology. Evangelicals are especially susceptible to this conflict, where many people equate taking the Bible at face value to meaning taking the Bible “literally.”

There are places where the Bible is LITERAL AT FACE VALUE BUT THERE ARE ALSO TIMES WHEN IT IS “COUCHED IN ANALOGY”or “HIDDEN WITHIN A PRECEPT OF DEEPER TRUTH”

Some are intent on preserving the credibility and historicity of scripture, BUT IN THEIR ZEAL THEY have misinterpreted and damaged its credibility substantially. God speaks through two books: scripture and nature. He does not contradict himself.

Unfortunately, the church as the “guardians of Truth” too many times ARE guilty of substituting their own “culturally situated” understandings of Scripture for the inherent word of God and failing to see the difference between the two.

Upholding the Authority of Scripture from the very first Hebrew Word

——————

Even A non-believer knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and related positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a believer, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means too prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a believer and laugh it to scorn.

Augustine on the “literal” meaning of the Genesis Account. 12th Century A.D.

Simply put, evolution can be defined as the developing of new and complex forms of life, from simpler forms by natural processes rather than specific creation.

God is thus replaced by Nature; and evolutionists claim that all the amazing diversities of life on the earth do not speak of His wonderful creative Power, but of chance!

What they do NOT account for is the UNIVERSES PERFECT Fine Tuning?

Skeptics like to say that fine tuning cannot be proven by science, since we have only one universe to study. However, the discovery and quantification of dark energy has puzzled a number of scientists, who realize that its extremely small value requires that the initial conditions of the universe must have been extremely fine tuned in order that even matter would exist in our universe.

By chance, our universe would have been expected to consist of merely some thermal radiation.

How does this discovery impact atheists?

Those who favor naturalism had long sought to find the simplest explanation for the universe, hoping to avoid any evidence for design. A Big Bang model in which there was just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe would have provided that. However, for many years, it has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning.

The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10120, which is:

1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Atheists’ reactions

What do atheists think about this level of design?

Here is a quote from a recent article:

“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

Atheists see a conflict because this level of design is something that one would not expect by chance from a universe that began through a purely naturalistic mechanism or The construction of a machine, engine or instrument, intended to apply power to a useful purpose; the structure of parts, or manner in which the parts of a machine are united to answer its design. “Common wisdom” is common only to those who must exclude a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe.

Yet another study confirms the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation, left over from the Big Bang. The standard inflationary model predicted that the background radiation should be polarized when it interacted with matter, nearly 14 billion years ago. John Carlstrom, the S. Chandrasekhar Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, announced the discovery and made the following admission:

“Polarization is predicted. It’s been detected and it’s in line with theoretical predictions. We’re stuck with this preposterous universe.”

Naturalism fails the test

In another article entitled,

“Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant”

researchers from Stanford and MIT examined some of the “problems” associated with a cosmological constant. In their paper, they stated that the implications of a cosmological constant “lead to very deep paradoxes, which seem to require major revisions of our usual assumptions.” They admit that “there is no universally accepted explanation of how the universe got into such a special state” and that their study, “Far from providing a solution to the problem, we will be led to a disturbing crisis.” They also admit, “Some unknown agent initially started the inflation high up on its potential, and the rest is history.”

In examining problems with the cosmological constant, the authors are concerned that ultimate fate of the universe is complete entropy with all the matter and energy distributed over maximally expanded spacetime. They cite the ability of the universe to undergo “Poincare recurrences” as a possible “solution” to one of the “problems.”

There is a certain theoretical possibility that after the universe is maximally expanded that it would come back together again into one point. Think of it like this. Let’s say you are in a room with air molecules randomly moving around in the room. There is a certain probability that the random motion of the molecules could cause all of them to travel to one corner of the room, leaving you in a complete vacuum.

Obviously, this would not be a good thing to happen, but it is possible, with an interval on the order of once every 1060 years. Since we only live 102 years in a universe that has been around for only 1010 years, it is practically impossible.

So, what is the time it would take for a fully expanded universe to come back into a single point?

The authors calculate the value as e10120 years, which they comment “seems like an absurdly big time between interesting events, which, by comparison, last for a very short time.” Recent evidence suggests that even this estimate is very optimistic.

Some scientists believe that the universe will be permanently destroyed within 22 billion years, with no possibility of reassembly. Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth College says that the dark energy of the universe is increasing at a rate that will rip the universe apart and even the atoms themselves.

However, it is the nature of inflation and the temperature of the universe that deeply concerns these cosmologists. This is what they have to say about the nature of our current universe, among all other possible universes:

“In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures.

However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without “miracles,” that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely.”

Appealing to possible alternative ways that the universe might have evolved do not make fine tuning untenable. In fact, the vast majority of possible universes would contain no matter at all – just energy! Here is what Dyson says about the probability that our universe would be the way it is:

“The vast majority of the space consists of states which are macroscopically “dead de Sitter;” that is, nearly empty de Sitter containing only some thermal radiation. A tiny subset of the states are anthropically acceptable, meaning that they contain complex structures such as stars and galaxies, and a very small subset of those are macroscopically indistinguishable from our universe (labeled MIFOU in the figure).

Inflationary initial conditions occupy an even smaller fraction of the space. Trajectories which pass through the inflationary patch will almost always lead immediately to the MIFOU region, “mixing” into it in a “porous,” phase-space-area-preserving manner. The vast majority of the points in the MIFOU region did not come from inflation, but rather from unstable trajectories originating in the dead region.

Finally, any trajectory in the dead region will remain there almost all of the time, but will occasionally enter the anthropically acceptable region, and very much more rarely the MIFOU region, and almost never the inflationary region. Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the “miraculous” states discussed above.”

THIS ALONE “TOTALLY DISPROVES”EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT,WHICH SHOULD HAVE THEM ALL WORSHIPING GOD,SO WHY DON’T THEY?

WELL THE PROBLEM THEY HAVE IS “SPIRITUAL IN NATURE NOT MENTAL”,THUS NO MATTER HOW IMPOSSIBLE THE ANSWER IS, THE HARDER THEY FIGHT THE RESULTS!

DID you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source? Not even the most “educated” atheists – particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated. They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetrators in different cultures; but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.

The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon. But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin – that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time.

Atheism is not a man-made doctrine but a doctrine of the demons. Its originator is none other than the old serpent himself, namely, Satan. It had its origin from the very one it deceptively denies exists.

It is a doctrine which denies the authorship and existence of its own author! This accounts for the absence of information in any literature embraced by atheists that identify both a human author and earthly time of origin for atheism.

SEE, ALL THAT DENIAL HAS A PRICE DOESN’T IT? RESEARCH THE “BEGINNINGS OF ATHEISM” and you’ll FIND EVERY ANSWER YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR REVEALED!

If Satan is not the author of atheism, I hereby challenge the most educated and capable of them to prove that Satan is not its author and prove that it had an earthly origin.This may be the hardest thing any Atheist will ever do is to solve it’s own origin problem!Creation 1 Evolution 0 , without a doubt then THIS IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT THERE IS BOTH A GOD & A CREATION HE CREATED, BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT SUPPORT A NATURALISTIC PROCESS ALONE FOR IT’S BEGINNING.

As I stated before all the PROVING IS IN THE COURT OF THE ATHEIST NOT THE CHRISTIAN!

PART 3 My response to an Atheist Essay!

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “GOD-IS-NO-WHERE & GOD-IS-NOW-HERE” is only a matter of PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE!

BACK TO THE ESSAY– “The second of which is I do not find the state of the world in accordance with an idea of a loving and merciful higher power. Then of course there is the factor that the basis of this essay shall be about; I do not find the Biblical God fit for worship. Over the course of this essay there will be some times when I will speak as if I believe in the Bible, when in fact I do not.”

A.) THE STATE OF THE WORLD:

This I assume refers to the SORRY STATE THAT MAN { With God’s HELP } HAS PUT THE WORLD IN SINCE HIS INTRODUCTION INTO GOD’S CREATION, WARS, FAMINE, HATRED, RELIGION.

{ YES, I SAID RELIGION BETTER KNOWN AS HYPOCRISY IN PRACTICE! }

Hypocrisy means:

Simulation; a feigning to be what one is not; or dissimulation, a concealment of one’s real character or motives. More generally, hypocrisy is simulation, or the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or religion; a deceitful show of a good character, in morals or religion; a counterfeiting of religion.

This is the MAIN REASON for the existence of Atheism in our world today, I believe that for every hypocrite there are hundred’s of NEW ATHEIST’S BORN!

The foolishness of a few so-called “Christian’s” who thought it O.K. to pretend to be one thing while “LIVING ANOTHER WAY” has “Evolved into the most profound hypocrisy of all” an excuse to live WITHOUT THE DESIGNER OF CREATION!

BEHOLD THE HYPOCRISY WITHIN ALL OF US INCLUDING ATHEIST’S, INBREED IN OUR D.N.A.

Galatians 5:19-21

” Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

This is what makes MAN do the ugly things he does both to himself and to nature. ATHEIST’S DO ALL THESE THINGS AS WELL BECAUSE of The nature of SIN within is the cause of all the world’s problems.

Her problem is a SELF-CREATED one, because of her own “preconceived ideas” about the God she thinks we believe in and how he SHOULD ACT as she see’s it.

If a person who OPENLY IS DEFIANT TO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE reads the bible, they WILL NOT READ IT AS WE WOULD.

THIS IS A “PRECONCEIVED RESPONSE” rooted deep in the soul which can only be uprooted by an “INVASION OF PURE TRUTH” that breaks through the hardness of mental blocks that have been either self-taught or generationally instilled!

The problem of “Evil in the world” is a real issue and to properly understand it is the KEY to understanding OUR purpose in the plan of God. First we MUST understand that “Evil” is never to be understood in the OLD MIDDLE AGE DOGMAS of the false churches created to purposely confuse mankind about God!

B.) “THE IDEA OF A LOVING & MERCIFUL FATHER”

ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND WHY GOD DOES THINGS THE WAY HE DOES, THEN ALL THOSE IMPOSSIBLE OUTCOMES ARE NO LONGER IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND!

Here is more of her essay:

” I plan to examine the Bible with critical inquiry. This essay will not be based upon scientific facts and how they disprove the Bible. It shall be an application of my emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice.

I hope to explain more clearly why the God depicted in the Bible violates my idea of a moral being. This shall be done over a series of topics. Each pointing out how Jehovah is undeserving of my worship. I will utilize Biblical verses to support my claim as well as what I consider to be logical reasoning.”

You will notice that she is BASING THIS CRITICAL INQUIRY ON EMOTIONAL IDEALS,THEREFORE NEGATING HER RESULTS BECAUSE OF A COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOD’S PURPOSE IN DOING THINGS THE WAY HE DID THEM!

She is using what she THINKS SHE WOULD DO IN GOD’S PLACE TO JUDGE HIS ACTIONS.

Is this fair?

No! It is common for all of us to do it BUT IT IS A VERY LIMITED WAY TO JUDGE ANY SUBJECT because our knowledge of the subject goes ONLY AS FAR AS OUR EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS TO IT, what I call a “Preconceived Idea”!

It’s like a “SCRATCHED RECORD” we replay what we KNOW HAS OR WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY!

If we deem God “EVIL”then we cannot believe past our “IDEA that God is bad, even when the evidence is exactly the opposite.

It is always funny that the Atheist uses the very things that God has in FAR more abundance { Love, Grace, Mercy, Fairness, Righteousness, Kindness ect. } to disprove his ability to rule, SHE SAYS SHE WILL BE Capable of judging with accuracy; conforming to exact rules of propriety AT LEAST THAT’S WHAT THE WORD “CRITICAL” MEANS, I make NO SUCH CLAIM BECAUSE IT IS “IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO, WHEN YOUR MIND IS ALREADY MADE UP CONCERNING WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

The only way to TRULY JUDGE THE BIBLE IS TO BE “COMPLETELY FREE OF ALL EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE” IN CONNECTION TO THESE SUBJECTS!

SO I ASK YOU IN ALL HONESTY…. CAN YOU OR ANYONE GET IN LINE FOR JUDGING GOD?

Unless you can look at the evidence with a purely “LOGICAL MIND” without NEGATIVE emotions of any kind then you “Atheist OR Christian” cannot judge what God did or does…..PERIOD!

It is NOT what I or you consider to be LOGICAL WITH OUR SHIFTING EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS THAT SHOULD BE USED TO JUDGE EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST GOD’S ACTIONS BUT ONLY PURE LOGICAL DEDUCTION ALONE!

I am NOT saying that we cannot have emotional attachments to the subject God knows I do, what I am saying is that we cannot begin to be “Logical” if emotion takes the place of understanding.”

The last blog I gave you “PROVED FROM SCIENCE THAT THERE IS THE PLAUSIBLE RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT GOD DOES EXIST, WITHOUT ANY EMOTIONAL OUTBURST ATTACHED TO IT CAN YOU HONESTLY DENY THAT EVIDENCE?

If you can, then your battle is not with God but LOGICAL DEDUCTION ITSELF.

PROOF MEANS THIS:

In law and logic, that degree of evidence which convinces the mind of the certainty of truth of fact, and produces belief. Proof is derived from personal knowledge, or from the testimony of others, or from conclusive reasoning.

Proof differs from demonstration which is what Atheist’s present constantly AS EVIDENCE, which is applicable only to those truths of which the contrary is inconceivable.

A PROOF PRODUCES Firmness of mind; stability not to be shaken; as a mind or virtue that is proof against the arts of seduction and the assaults of temptation. Let’s face facts……

Atheist’s have NEVER, THAT’S RIGHT NEVER PRESENTED “EVIDENCE IN PROOF” THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST…WHY?

Because they can’t find any…so they do what comes naturally, ATTACK GOD’S CHARACTER INSTEAD.

Its almost “FUNNY” TO WATCH THE “NO-GODS” ATTACK THE CHARACTER OF SOMEONE WHO IS’NT THERE.

Now let’s look at this behavior LOGICALLY-HOW CAN ANYONE ATTACK SOMEONE IF THEY DO NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND CAN THAT “character information gathered to DISPROVE the existance of God REALLY BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS EXISTENCE- TALK ABOUT “CIRCULAR REASONING”

{ God does not exist because of his bad character revealed in HIS WORD- THIS IS DENIAL OF THE FACTS NOT PROOF HE ISN’T THERE. }

THIS STINKS OF IT WITH EVERY FALSE ARGUMENT PRESENTED.

Another question,WHY DON’T ATHEIST’S EVER USE THE SAME REASONING AGAINST OTHER RELIGIONS JUST AS BRUTALLY AS THEY SEEM TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY?

There are a MULTITUDE OF GODS THROUGHOUT HISTORY THAT ARE FAR “WORSE” & MAKE THE OLD TESTAMENT LOOK LIKE A PICNIC IN COMPARISION,WHY NOT “ATTACK THEM?

The God of scripture SEEMS TO BE the ONLY GOD that warrents their anger,and THAT ALONE MAKES THEIR AURGUMENTS INVALID! IT PROVES THAT OUR GOD IS POWERFUL & ALL OTHERS ARE NOT,OR THEY WOULD ALL BE EQUALLY ATTACKED & MALINED!

THEREFORE I PRESENT BEFORE YOU THAT IT IS THE A-THEIST { THE TRUE BLUE there is NO God person } AND NOT GOD THAT DOES NOT EXIST!

PART 4 A response about “HELL” and a loving God!

“Hell, of course, is the mother of all of my problems with the bible. It is perhaps the most despicable and hideous of all of the Christian God’s crimes. Indeed, the cruelest of all concentration camps.”“Most courts of law would take custody of your child from you just for an excessive spanking. We as a people enacted these laws, for we thought them to be logical. Is God above logic, or what we deem as compassionate behavior?”

{ THE REAL PROBLEM HERE IS THIS IS A “FALSE ARGUMENT,BECAUSE THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS A CHILD OF GOD CAN GO TO HELL; It is the “Illegitimate” Children of Satan THAT SPEND ETERNITY WITH THEIR FATHER SATAN,WHICH IS ONLY PROPER }

“Free Will”, You Say?

“It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not. How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences?”

{ HERE I WOULD ASK: Is the FACT that we enjoy freedom in this country any reason to believe that, that freedom does not come with CONSEQUENCES ATTACHED and responsibilities as well?

EVERY ACTION WHETHER PHYSICAL OR SPIRITUAL HAS AN “EQUAL & OPPOSITE REACTION.

We as Americans have responsibility to function within the Laws of our country. If we go outside those Laws WE will be incarcerated or fined for the time allowed by Law, we cannot get around the Law just because we are “Citizens” of this country.}

“That (says she) completely conflicts with the definition of free. If I were to hold a gun to your head and say “you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you.” Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter? Of course not.”

“Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self-defeating. Call it Circumstantial Will, for that is what it truly is.”

“That indeed, we as children of God, chose rather to be hell’s inmates then God’s disciples in heaven. It’s an interesting idea. However, you don’t have to hurt anyone to get into Hell. All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior.”

Here is where I would contend that she AND MOST IN THE CHURCHES have a total misunderstanding of the WILL of man.

You see the ONLY TIME THAT MAN’S WILL WAS TRULY FREE in the Bible is BEFORE THE FALL,WHEN HE WALKED WITH GOD FACE TO FACE!

AFTER THE FALL HIS WILL WAS THEN PULLED BY SIN AND SHADED IN THE VOID OF EVIL,WHEREVER “GOODNESS”WAS ABSENT.

The problem now is that our “mind, will & emotions” are under a shadow, a void, where our understanding must be “Enlightened” by God to TRULY SEE THE WAY- It does NOT matter whether or NOT our will is Free or Enslaved, it is still the only will we have to choose with.

But the real issue lies with “A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT GOD’S ORIGINAL PLAN FOR US and because of this missing piece of the puzzle we “DECIDE OR CHOOSE” by wrong information given to us by satanic beings leading us astray and a fallen .

It is your WILL tainted as it is:

It is the part of you that DECIDES THINGS that is spiritually being “RAPED” by demonic lies. And each time a lie is accepted

OR IT CAN BE “GUIDED” BY GOD TO MAKE A RIGHT CHOICE!

But  SHE IS RIGHT ABOUT one thing here ACCEPTING JESUS AS SAVIOR BEING THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID HELL!

THIS IS THE TRUE CHOICE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, FOR JESUS EMBODIES ALL THE PERFECTIONS OF HEAVEN! He and he alone can make the right choices because he’s been there and has a “bird’s eye view” of the future!

We have SELFISH, SELF ABSORBED WILLS THAT ARE BOUND BY WORLDLY PLEASURES AND MISCONCEPTIONS OF THOUGHT.

Our minds IN Hell will EMBODY ALL THE “REGRETFUL SUFFERINGS OF life”ONCE WE “DIE”.

We will “KNOW FULLY WHAT WE’VE MISSED OUT ON “BECAUSE OF OUR PERSONAL CHOICES” TO SERVE SELF INSTEAD OF GOD, and this in turn will produce the “Physical sufferings of our spiritual bodies” in hell.

The suffering will equal our personal choices in life, no one will suffer for others sins so each punishment will be JUST! God KNOWS your secrets!

HELL EXISTS!

THIS IS A FACT!

Our beliefs do no change reality in this life or the next. No amount of “Worldly Reasoning” will make the slightest difference to the Judgement seat of Christ!

But there are those who try to attack GOD’S CHARACTER ABOUT HELL,which is like attacking the “WARDEN’S CHARACTER” BECAUSE HE RUNS A PRISON SANCTIONED BY THE LAW OF THE LAND!

ASK YOURSELF: Why would Jesus use wording that seems to be BASED UPON pagan false doctrine IF IT REALLY WERE FALSE DOCTRINE ?

The suggestion that Jesus used Jewish Fable and Pagan false doctrine in Luke 16 is inconceivable!

Arians, who believe Jesus sided with the Sadducees view of extinction, simply cannot explain Luke 16.

They are forced into falsely accusing Jesus of promoting what He knew was pagan false doctrine!

The only reasonable conclusion, is that conscious life after death IS NOT pagan false doctrine, but the very truth Jesus chose to convey by simply reading Luke 16!

Paul condemned using Jewish myths and fables in 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Tit. 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16!

Rather than call themselves false teachers, they call Jesus the false teacher!

Now PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT ATHEIST’S DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANYTHING SPIRITUAL AS A REALITY, HELL, HEAVEN, GOD….

SO THIS IS ONLY TO PROVE THAT JESUS TAUGHT THIS VERY IMPORTANT DOCTRINE AND IT WAS NOT A FALSE DOCTRINE!

Is there any real logic about Hell?

The ‘logic’ of hell in the bible is surprisingly simple:

You receive back the treatment/effects you gave others (including God and yourself) with some kind of multiplier effect.

[The bible is full of images of this reciprocity concept:

1.) reaping what you sow…

2.) being paid back….

3.) suffering loss as you had despoiled others…..

4.) unkindness for unkindness shown….

5.) apathy for apathy rendered…..

6.) ‘eye for an eye’…..

7.) proportional judgment. ]

Most traditionalists also recognize that our exploitative actions toward others also modify our own characters in the process.

When I treat people destructively, I also treat myself in some way destructively.

When I treat people kindly, I also treat myself kindly.

From THE BOOK, Immortality: The Other Side of Death, by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland

“Before proceeding, though, one more preliminary is in order. We do not accept the idea that hell is a place where God actively tortures people forever and ever.

There will indeed be everlasting, conscious, mental and physical torment in various degrees according to the lives people have lived here on earth.

But the essence of that torment is relational in nature: the banishment from heaven and all it stands for.

Mental and physical anguish result from the sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever rationally excluded from God, heaven, and so forth.

It is not due to God himself inflicting torture.”

“In response, we should first point out that we would agree that an un-ending hell of moment by moment, active torture by God would be unjust and hard to square with his love and the intrinsic dignity of man.

But we have already shown that our understanding of hell is different from the torture-chamber model.”

Hell is not a torture chamber, and people in hell are not howling like dogs in mind-numbing pain. There are degrees of anguish in hell.

“The Bible describes hell primarily in relational terms–

it is ‘away from’ God.

Therefore, it involves banishment from his presence, his purposes, and his followers.

Like heaven, hell is a freely chosen destination.

What we decide to believe and do in this life sets us on a road leading to a final destination in the next…Hell is also a place of shame, sorrow, regret, and anguish.

This intense pain is not actively produced by God; he is not a cosmic torturer. Undoubtedly, anguish and torment will exist in hell.

And because we will have both body and soul in the resurrected state, the anguish experienced can be both mental and physical.

But the pain suffered will be due to the shame and sorrow resulting from the punishment of final, ultimate, unending banishment from God, his kingdom, and the good life for which we were created in the first place.

Hell’s occupants will deeply and tragically regret all they lost. As Jesus said, ‘For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?’ (Matt 16:26)”

“The Bible’s picture of hell, therefore, indicates that upon death, some people will be translated into a different, nonsocial mode of existence.

They will be conscious, and they will await the resurrection of their bodies, at which time they will be banished from heaven and secured in hell where they will experience unending, conscious exclusion from God, his people, and anything of value.

This banishment will include conscious sorrow, shame, and anguish to differing degrees, depending on the person’s life on earth.”

I could not have said it better myself, HELL HAS BEEN TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD BY EVEN THE CHURCH ITSELF…SO HOW MUCH MORE HAS IT BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD BY THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD?

The second is from a Catholic source…SURPRISED! I WAS!

A New Catechism:

Catholic Faith for Adults, Seabury:1966, p.480:

“Jesus speaks of the of one’s being eternally condemned. We read of ‘eternal punishment’ (Mt. 25:46).

This could be wrongly understood, as if a disaster or even an injustice then befell the damned, as can sometimes happen with punishments on earth.

Hence we find it more enlightening to express the same truth by the term ‘eternal sin’.

The state of cold obstinacy has become eternal.

They have become impervious to God, love, goodness, Christ and fellowship.

But it was for these things that man was made.

It is now a total perversion, sin brought to its fullest self-expression.

To be lost means to be entirely closed in on oneself, without contact with others or with God. This is the punishment, the ‘second death’ (Rev. 20:14).

Scripture uses terrifying words to express it: darkness, gnashing of teeth, fire. They need not be taken as literal descriptions.

They are apt expressions nonetheless of the dismay at having missed the end and object of existence.”

Let me point out here that these two sources would not be ‘liberal’ in ANY sense of the word.

They would represent mainstream, conservative, traditional views of hell.

Moreland and Habermas, for example, would probably be considered ‘literalists’ when it comes to the Book of Revelation (probably pre-millennialist).

The couple of passages that paint potential “mind-numbing” pictures of torment in hell would not be ‘explained away’ by these two, but would be given full weight in constructing their comment quoted above.

There is no ‘softening’ of the reality of hell here by them, but there is no Dante here either (they literally refer to hell as “living in a state with a low quality of life”–hardly a description of mind-numbing torment! (p.173))…

Now, it is important here to make sure we understand this point–that the traditional view of hell does not contain the images of torture of Dante, the Greek and Roman writers, the Jewish pseudepigraphal writers, and many of the early Church Fathers.

We must try to see the biblical teaching without these cultural and historical preconceptions.

“PART 5 A RESPONSE to an ATHEIST ABOUT “GENOCIDE”

It has been an honor as a teacher of the Word of God to uphold the standard of God’s character against these UNFOUNDED ATTACKS by a simply MISINFORMED ATHEIST!

One who REFUSES TO SEE “THE WITNESS of CREATION” because of the deception she has embraced.

She goes on to say:

“I hear a lot from Christians tell me about God’s “infinite compassion and mercy”.

“Instead of harping on me about something so unapparent, they should go tell it to the Midianites. “

What about Genocide & scripture, did God commit ETHNIC- {On heathen; or pagans} GENOCIDE? On heathen or pagans?

First what is GENOCIDE?

It is defined as:

“in international law, the intentional by Design and systematic by Method destroy, wholly or in part, by a government of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. Although the term genocide was first coined in 1944, the crime itself has been committed often in history”, BUT never by OR According to the doctrines of morality.

NO CRIME OF THIS MAGNITUDE IS DONE ON MORAL GROUNDS, IT CAN ONLY BE DONE BY AN A-MORAL PEOPLE devoid of personal judgment.

So we must judge this not on the moral standings of men BUT upon the ETHICAL STAND OF A MORAL GOD!

I must also interject here that Adolf Hitler “CLAIMED TO BE CHRISTIAN” BECAUSE HE AND HIS HENCHMEN WERE CATHOLICS, JESUIT TRAINED IN FACT..ALL THIS PROVES IS THAT “RELIGION IN ANY MAN-MADE FORM” IS NOT TRUE FAITH IN GOD AND THEREFORE NOT EVIDENCE OF GOD’S IMPROPRIETY.

If anything it shows the utter contempt for life that PAGANS PRETENDING TO BE CHRISTIAN THROUGH FALSE RELIGION have for each other and the rest of us…HITLER WAS NO MORE “GOD’S CHILD” THAN YOUR A HAMBURGER IF YOU GO TO McDonald’s.

PRESENCE IN A CHURCH BUILDING DOES NOT EQUAL GOD’S PRESENCE IN THE HEART.

Here’s an example of the type of verses atheist’s misunderstand, NOT THE WORDING OF THE VERSE BUT THE INTENT OF GOD’S DIRECTION IN THE VERSE.

“Thus saith the LORD of hosts … go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

“How Could a Compassionate God Order the “Genocide” of the Canaanites or Amalek ?”

Now of course I can give the simple answer from the Bible which is enough for people who trust God but not for those who DOUBT HIS RIGHT TO RULE!

THE BIBLE SAYS that God gave them 400+ years to repent WARNING THEM BY EVERY WAY POSSIBLE and that their sins were beyond horrible, but the real question is an ethical one.

How can God who has such compassion for the innocents in Nineveh order the wholesale killing of innocent children in Palestine?

Is the God of the OT and the God of the NT the same Person?

How can I reconcile these, in modern terms, “unthinkable” crimes against humanity with the God of compassion revealed by Jesus?

We need to revisit the assessment of the Canaanites as “innocent people.” Also remember that God sent Jonah to WARN NINEVEH WHICH WAS NOT INNOCENT or they would not have been warned!

SO THE BIBLICAL PATTERN REMAINS THE SAME-

WARNING!….

THEN SURE JUDGMENT!

From God’s perspective, there is no such thing as an innocent human being (apart from Jesus Christ).

Every human heart is born with the nature of evil and bent on sin and rebellion. I see a strong parallel between God’s actions against the Canaanites and the actions of an oncology surgeon.

He has to cut out what may appear to be healthy tissue but which is actually infected with cancer cells that ONLY HE SEES.

NO ONE would say “How could this compassionate doctor “CUT OFF” human flesh that is perfectly good?

Doesn’t he know it HURTS the patient to do this, doesn’t he KNOW that the patient will miss that part and “morn” that loss the rest of his or her life?

Was this loss really necessary?

Couldn’t the doctor have done it some other way to AVOID ALL THAT PAIN?

Or whatever else the MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK would teach?

Does not the doctor with all his vast knowledge know MORE THAN THE PATIENT ABOUT HIS PROBLEM?

This is the idea behind “PERSONAL ETHICS”THE DOCTOR MUST LOOK AT ALL AVENUES OF TREATMENT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE MANY COMPONENTS OF THE PATIENTS LIFE, SICKNESS, HISTORY AND PHYSIOLOGY IN ORDER TO COME TO THE SOLUTION HE ULTIMATELY FOLLOWS THROUGH WITH.

This is “ETHICAL BEHAVIOR” FROM THE HUMAN PERSPECTIVE, HOW MUCH MORE DETAILED WOULD GOD’S INVESTIGATION BE IN REGARDS TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

HOW DARE ANY HUMAN JUDGE HIM!

The Canaanites were infected with sin, they practiced CHILD SACRIFICE TO FALSE GOD’S AND THE MOST PERVERTED SEXUAL DEVIANCE IMAGINABLE, with animals and human alike.

This was a judgment EQUAL TO THEIR SINS AGAINST MAN & NATURE as well as to GOD, the Utter annihilation of a civilization that was rotten to the core, BUILT UPON THE BLOOD OF IT’S OWN CHILDREN.

This kind of evil cannot ever be excused before the Cross of Christ, and the very fact that any Atheist would try too is APPALLING IN IT’S OWN RIGHT!

The children OF THESE EVIL PAGANS were not as innocent as we think they were. Remember children must be RAISED UP IN “EVIL PRACTICES” IN ORDER TO BE WILLING SACRIFICES TO THEIR GOD’S.

Look at the LRA in Uganda, and if you have a chance to watch a video called “Invisible Children”, you’ll see two opposites to children. To the same degree of innocence and the good from innocence that children can have is the same degree to which they can become even more evil and destructive.

Most of us live in a time and a place where we are mostly shielded from what true evil looks like. The evil that all people of all ages did in Sodom, Gomorrah, Canaan, Moab, Ammon, Edom, and other places dwarfs the worst acts we hear about on the news,we have not even come close to these evils today.

Until we understand what true evil looks like and the consequences of it and STOP JUSTIFYING IT AS FREE SPEECH!

We will have a hard time ever understanding God’s justice and mercy and we will be shocked at what “normal people” or even “perverts” are truly capable of.

Until then, we will be shocked that a seemingly “normal” man went into an Amish schoolhouse and murdered without remorse, or that two boys went into Columbine high school and didn’t come out alive, or that people could so hate us they will fly planes into our buildings,make no mistake about it…

THEY HAVE NO MERCY WITHIN THEM, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN “SEARED INSIDE” by their constant sinning.

Also remember what happened in the case of Babylon/Persia bringing back the best of the children of captured countries — Daniel and his buddies became the most powerful in the land.

This was a positive result BUT the same could also happen in a reverse scenario, and in a worst case scenario they would try to overthrow or pervert the Israelites with enough time and the right catalysts.

Let’s also remember that the Canaanites did exactly the same to the Israelites (women and children included) years before, a fact passed over.

Who were the early inhabitants of the Holy Land?

They were the descendants of Shem and Arphaxed (ancestor of the Hebrews).

The PRE- PROMISED { In the heart of God } uninhabited land was populated by them shortly after the flood and was an inheritance for them. Traditions regarding the early history of the Holy Land can be found in the Book of Jubilee, the Kebra Nagast and commentaries of Rash, Philo and the Sepher Hayashar.

Those descended from Ham were known as the Canaanites and were given a different inheritance to occupy, however, this was not good enough for them and they invaded the lands of Shem.

The Canaanites drove out and/or killed the descendants of Shem and then occupied the land. Although the Bible does not directly mention the Canaanite invasion it implies the occurrence in Genesis 12:6 when it uses the expression “the Canaanites were in the land”.

The Hebrew carries the connotation of, “then but not before”, as opposed to, “then but not now”, as Canaanites were present up and until the second Temple period by which time Genesis had certainly been written. Assuming this to be true the Israelite invasion was nothing short of an eye for an eye and was a righteous judgment according to Mosaic law.

BUT, please think about this- in the Old covenant relationship, God dealt with man WITHOUT A BORN AGAIN SPIRIT.

So God could not control men from the “HEART” like he can now in the New covenant,THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE…IT IS SIMPLY A REASON AMONG MANY REASONS FOR GOD’S ACTIONS!

Had the Israelites not eradicated the Canaanite people, I dare say you would have had land disputes much like you see in the Holy Land today.

Just as if the doctor HAD NOT REMOVED THE “CANCER INFECTED CELLS” in the body of his patient, DESPITE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT ACTION CAUSED, IT WAS “FAR BETTER” than the alternative!

It would have greatly hindered if not prevented the Israelite nation from EVER forming.

It was not just forming the nation God was worried about it was forming a nation free of the corruption and idol worship of the Canaanite people. God did not need more of the same from the Israelites as he got from the Canaanites.

Looking back you can see that God was successful only to the extent { HIS ULTIMATE PURPOSE FOR ISRAEL } that they were able to bring the Messiah into the world and preserve a remnant of the chosen people to serve him.

Let’s be very clear here, God acted in the BEST INTEREST OF HIS END GOAL- TO BRING ULTIMATE DELIVERANCE OF THE SIN PROBLEM, BY THE BIRTH OF HIS SON INTO THIS EARTH!

She says: “I have discovered via my discussions that there are two major forms:

the corruption argument

and the mercy argument.

The former says that those slaughtered were evil and deserving of their fate; the latter says that since they were religiously incorrect, it was a mercy to terminate their existence.”

Notice the precise wording of this statement, in order to give God no way out of the argument-

“Evil and Deserving”there is no MEAT in the middle with which to judge the action as I have plainly given, there is MORE between the EVIL and the DESERVING.

“RELIGIOUSLY INCORRECT” what does that mean exactly?

Numb 31:2

“Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.”

AGAIN….

” Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites:

” DID YOU SEE THAT? THESE MINIANITES HAD DONE THE SAME THING TO ISRAEL THAT GOD INSTRUCTED ISRAEL TO DO TO THEM, “AN EYE FOR AN EYE !”

For the injury they had done them, by sending their daughters among them, who enticed them to commit uncleanness with them, and then drew them into the worship of their idols, which brought the wrath of God upon them, and for which 24,000 persons were slain.

Now, though the Moabites had a concern in this affair as well as the Midianites, yet they were spared; which some think was for the sake of Lot, from whom they descended; but why not the Midianites for the sake of Abraham, whose offspring they were by Keturah?

Jarchi says, they were spared because of Ruth, who was to spring from them; and so she might, and yet vengeance be taken on great numbers of them: but the truer reason seems to be, either because the sin of the Moabites was not yet full, and they were reserved for a later punishment; or rather because they were not the principal actors in the above affair; but the Midianites, who seem to have advised Balak at first to send for Balaam to curse Israel, and who harboured that soothsayer after he had been dismissed by Balak, and to whom he gave his wicked counsel, and which they readily followed, and industriously pursued.”

ETHER WAY YOU LOOK AT THIS- IT WAS “JUSTICE” & NOT “GENOCIDE!”

PART 6 of A RESPONSE TO AN ATHEIST ON GOD’S CHARACTER!

She states about Hell

“However, you don’t have to hurt anyone to get into Hell. All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior. It doesn’t matter how virtuous you are, how much good you do, how happy an environment you create for others. Given this, the voluntary entry argument doesn’t make sense.

The same argument could be used to justify the sending of Aryan opponents of Nazism to concentration camps: they voluntarily chose not to give homage to Hitler, so they chose to be interred. Why should we blame the Nazis for the inmates’ choice?

Why should we blame God for the choice of the damned?”

Of course the FACT that MOST of the Jews DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE INTERNED OR TO DIE DOES NOT ENTER HER MIND WHEN MAKING THIS POINTLESS POINT!

YOU WILL NOTICE HER CHOICE OF AN ANALOGY, SHE EQUATES GOD’S PERFECTLY JUST BALANCES WITH A “CONCENTRATION CAMP & THE SOLDIERS OF HITLER”.

Why?

Because this invokes the worst of memories and causes the mind to attach this horror to what God did concerning Salvation, more to the fine point HOW SALVATION WORKS.

This argument against the most perfectly JUST & EQUAL PLAN OF SALVATION COULD ONLY COME FROM SATAN HIMSELF!

A false conclusion that God is unjust for His actions is what began the birth process of atheism. It is very important to keep that fact in mind.

A conclusion that the Almighty Righteous God is unjust or wrong for any of His actions cannot be arrived at except through the total depravity of those who draw such a conclusion.

So in order to understand how atheism had it’s origin, It is crucial to realize that the total depravity of the nature of Satan is the key principle that underlies the origin of atheism.

Satan has CORRUPTED MORAL PRINCIPLES, AND IS DEVOID OF GOOD IN ANY FORM- THEREFORE “HE” IS THE BEGINNING OF THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO DEFY GOD’S CHARACTER!

Even though the conclusion that God is unjust is high error and was known by Satan to be so, his total depravity nevertheless made it impossible for him to conclude otherwise.

Depravity must direct the hearts of its graceless subjects against God even though they know better. This is because of the very antithetical nature of depravity to God and His Law.

The nature of both human and demonic depravity is an unvarying and uncompromising principle that works apart from what its subjects know and remains opposed to God at all times despite God’s actions and despite their knowledge that it is impossible for God to be wrong.

The negative expressions of God toward the existence and outworking of the depraved natures of humans and demons is always right, whereas the negative expressions and opposition of the depraved natures of humans and demons toward God are always wrong.

The very antithetical nature of the depravity of graceless humans and demons invariably enslaves them to react negatively to God regardless of what God does. Therefore, their depravity reacts negatively to God, despite the fact that God can never do evil and despite the fact that He is always perfectly innocent.

Here lies also the origin of insanity, WHICH MEANS TO BE TRAPPED IN A CYCLE OF DOING THE SAME THING OVER & OVER AGAIN EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT.

In order for Satan to have endeavored to judge God, there had to be in place some type of opinion, philosophy, religion, charter or law by which he used to try to judge God.

But God is not subject to anything. Nothing exists whatsoever that God is subject to or responsible to obey except his own word.

THIS REMINDS ME OF THE FUNNIEST ARGUMENT AGAINST GOD BEING GOD, I HAVE EVER HEARD.

“Who created God?

A super God, and who created the super God?

A super,super God?

AS IF THIS WAS A SERIOUS BLOW TO GIVE THE “I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I? “DEFENSE!

God is not subject, SITUATED OR PLACED UNDER HIS OWN LAW even to the most noble law in the universe – the TEN COMMANDMENTS- which He made for mankind, nor to any law made for the angels. He is above all laws and does only His own will.

Why?

Because if ANYTHING IS ABOVE GOD, GOD CEASES TO BE GOD– GOD’S LAW IS A REFLECTION OF HIS PERSONAL MORAL CHARACTER, GOD HAS Moral sense, an innate or natural sense of right and wrong; an instinctive perception of what is right or wrong in moral conduct, which approves some actions and disapproves others.

God’s WILL IN THE UNIVERSE ALWAYS FOLLOWS HIS LAW, BUT BECAUSE WE ARE “FINITE IN UNDERSTANDING” WE DO NOT HAVE THE BIG PICTURE AS HE DOES SO WE “MISUNDERSTAND” HIS CHOICES IN CONNECTION WITH HIS LAW BECAUSE WE ONLY SEE IN PART AND KNOW IN PART.

So there is no law He can possibly violate by any of His actions. Therefore, He cannot be rightly judged to be wrong in any action He performs.

I can hear the Atheist now, “What? so God is not held to his law”? NO THAT’S NOT QUITE WHAT I MEAN BY THIS, YOU SEE..GOD IS THE MOST ADVANCED MORAL PERSON EVER TO BE, SO HE HOLDS HIMSELF TO HIS OWN STANDARDS BECAUSE HE IS THE SOURCE OF ALL MORALITY.

An example of this is found in

Heb 6:13

“For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself,…….

Heb 6:16

“For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.”

Heb 6:17

“Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:”

Heb 6:18

“That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us”

God is the LAW THAT ALL LAWS THAT ARE PROCEED FROM.

The only choices Satan had by which to seek to judge God were in some form of his own depravity – Either choice would be the evil one attempting to judge the Righteous One – evil trying to condemn the righteousness as being evil – an impossibility and absolute deception.

But he probably chose the latter so as to make God deceptively appear wrong by His own Law. Again, an impossibility and absolute deception. This was the actual deceptive and utterly foolish birth of atheism. Atheism didn’t receive its origin by a true absence of proof of God’s existence, because there has always been and always will be overwhelming proof to the contrary.

Atheism had its origin by the expression of Satan’s depravity toward God, and it is embraced, maintained and perpetuated among graceless humans as a result of their total depravity. In other words, atheists follow in the footsteps of their master, the devil WHOM THEY DENY.

Now I will deal with the silliness of attacking salvation’s “ENTRANCE FEE!

She said ONE TRUTH HERE THAT NEEDS REPEATING:

“All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior.”

This is absolutely TRUE EXCEPT FOR THE KNOWING PART; IT’S INTIMATE PERSONAL INTERACTION OR NOTHING WITH GOD, the ONLY thing standing between you and hell is JESUS!

THAT’S HOW GOD PLANED IT AND IT IS THE SINGLE MOST FAIR WAY THAT HAS EVER BEEN DEVISED TO REDEEM MANKIND FROM HIMSELF AND SIN!

PLEASE, THINK FOR A MOMENT HERE…HOW COULD IT EVER BE FAIR TO JUDGE MAN ANY OTHER WAY?

John 3:14-21 SAYS:

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. “

{ Did you hear that, NO PERSONAL SIN SENDS YOU TO HELL- ONLY NOT RECEIVING JESUS IN YOUR LIFE }

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men { Atheist’s} loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

Now why is this such a sticking point to the Atheist?

In their thinking it is UNJUST TO SEND US TO TORMENT BECAUSE OF A PERSONAL CHOICE IN LIFE AND THAT WOULD MAKE ALL THE FUSS OVER SINS THAT WE COMMIT AGAINST GOD- DISPROVED!

SO THAT WE CAN DO AS WE PLEASE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES!

That is a FALSE CONCLUSION, SALVATION’S ENTRANCE FEE IS FAITH IN HIS SON [ THE DOOR] BUT PERSONAL SIN “STORES UP WRATH”AGAINST THAT DAY OF JUDGMENT, WHEN GOD WILL JUDGE THE WORKS OF MEN TO DETERMINE THEIR “AMOUNT OF TORMENT WHICH THEY NOT HE HAS STORED UP TO THEMSELVES FOR ETERNITY!

This is an equitable judgment, for you are NEVER PUNISHED BEYOND YOUR OWN CHOICE- IN LIFE OR IN DEATH!

If the entrance to heaven were by virtue of PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS, NO ONE COULD EVER BE GOOD ENOUGH TO GET IN….AND IF THE ENTRANCE TO HELL WERE SIMPLY BASED ON PERSONAL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS NO ONE COULD EVER AVOID GOING THERE, BUT GOD MADE IT SIMPLE TO AVOID HELL AND SIMPLE TO GO TO HEAVEN-

Atheist’s SIMPLY DON’T LIKE THE CHOICES so they wish to create a THIRD OPTION TO PARADISE: EAT OR BE EATEN AND NOT EVERYONE CAN MAKE IT!

THEIR PARADISE IS THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE WHERE THE WEAK ARE FOOD FOR THE STRONG!

BUT I ASK YOU, WHAT DO ANIMALS NEED WITH LOGIC IN A WORLD LIKE THAT?

GOD HAS ALWAYS HAD THE BETTER PLAN, BUT SATAN WILL NOT ALLOW MEN TO PLAINLY SEE IT.

PART 7 A RESPONSE to an ATHEIST Essay with a new challenge!

And before you even try to ANSWER this challenge and say “You own me!”

Really answer it and don’t side-step it with insulting words…please!

HERE ARE SOME COMMON COMMENTS FROM ALL ATHEIST’S CONTAINED IN HER ESSAY

“Most of us, given omnipotence, would be able to do a far better job than Jehovah. What would you do if given omnipotence?

“God’s supposed infinite mercy is apparently the same thing as no mercy at all.

What makes this particularly unforgivable is that even Jesus’ own standards demand feeding of the poor. See Matthew 25:35, in which it is stated that the blessed feed the hungry, and that the damned do not. I find it funny that God is held blameless, though, for not feeding them.

Does not the old saying “practice what you preach” apply to God? Is his lack of action a hypocrisy or a sin? Could it perhaps be both?

In fact, it would be far easier for God to feed all the poor with his omnipotence, than for any mortal man to feed even one! Mankind is certainly not blameless here, but it is Jehovah who is the true villain.”

MOST OF THIS IS AT BEST AN ASSUMPTION “A Strawman”OF WHAT GOD DOES BASED ON THE WORDING OF THE BIBLE IN CERTAIN PLACES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT…BUT LET US FOR A MOMENT LOOK AT THIS WITH THE BELIEF SYSTEM OF THE ATHEIST-

A. THERE IS NO GOD AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN !

B. IF THERE IS NO GOD OR ANY GOD THEN THERE IS NO “WORD FROM GOD”IN ANY PLACE ON EARTH.

{ Stay with me here,THIS IS AN ATHEIST PARADISE I’M REVEALING HERE}

C. IF THERE ARE NO GODS, NO TRUE BIBLES AND WE ARE MERELY DELUDED INTO BELIEVING ALL THIS ….THEN LET’S LOOK AT THIS WITH PURE LOGIC, THE WORLD…THE UNIVERSE IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF A LOVING GOD, WE ARE DESCENDED FROM ANIMALS WITH ONLY EVOLVED INSTINCT TO SURVIVE WITH…THAT’S THE ATHEIST ALTERNATIVE TO GOD.

1. IF THIS IS TRUE WHO DO YOU BLAME FOR ALL THE PROBLEMS THEN?

2. DO YOUR ARGUMENTS HOLD WATER IN YOUR WORLD ORDER OF THINGS without God to blame?

3. WHOSE FAULT ARE THE STARVING MILLIONS THEN if God is not there?

4. WHO CAUSES CANCER NOW if God is not there to blame?

5. WHO CAUSES WARS, THAT HAVE KILLED MILLIONS NOW if God is not there to blame?

6.WHO OR WHAT GETS THE BLAME IF THERE IS AND NEVER WAS A GOD,”RELIGION!?

I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THE PLAIN FOOLISHNESS OF THIS WOMAN’S ARGUMENTS BASED IN ONLY EMOTIONAL TOPICS LIKE HUNGER, WAR, MURDER.

The whole problem with what she is doing is made clear when the “SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT.” You see..in order for atheist’s to attack us they must TAKE ALL THE WORLD’S WOE’S AND BLAME THEM ON GOD “

This is their Strawman ” TO DISTRACT FROM THE REAL ANSWER- Atheism causes all the things THEY BLAME GOD FOR! And before someone out there says….”

Well, I just think that it is religion that has caused all this trouble in the world!”

If that is true then we are back at the same point we started at….WHERE AND HOW DID RELIGION BEGIN IF THERE NEVER WAS A GOD to start it?

Where did the idea of a “ONE True God” come from without any knowledge of Him? If we started out as Atheist’s in the beginning of time how did any knowledge of God get here!

This cannot be DISMISSED, YOU HAVE ONLY TWO CHOICES

– IT’S God’s fault and he exists after all,

OR

IT’S THE “UTOPIA OF MEN’S” FAULT AND GOD CANNOT BE BLAMED BUT IN DISPROVING THE ONE YOU MUST ADMIT TO THE OTHER!

Talk about “Painting yourself into a corner!” MY POINT IS A GOOD ONE..IF ATHEIST’S USE THE BIBLE AGAINST GOD THEY ARE “CONCEDING” THAT HIS WORD IS TO BE OBEYED AND THEREFORE THAT HE EXISTS SO HE CAN BE BLAMED FOR ALL OUR PROBLEMS!

But if they truly believe what they teach, that there is and CAN BE NO GOD CONTROLLING ALL THINGS……THEN THEY ARE LEFT WITH A DILEMMA – WHO TO BLAME FOR ALL MAN’S SCREW UP’S…THINK THEY WILL BLAME THEMSELVES?

I know they won’t!

I think the thing that STANDS OUT as the biggest DOUBLE STANDARD is the Atheist using THE BIBLE to disprove a NON-EXISTENT GOD and then turning around in the same essay and saying this:

“Suppose you were an omnipotent god, and you demand worship, such as the Christian God.

Would you give proof of your existence to those who wished to follow you? I imagine for Jehovah that it would be quite simple to perform a continual sequence of verifiable miracles. It would be quite logical in practice too, for it would keep God’s followers from delusion and doubt.

There is no such luck with Jehovah though. He demands absolute fidelity without any demonstration of his existence. The only so called record of his existence is the bible. I think it pretty much goes with out saying that not only is the bible 2,000 years out dated, but it is also very unoriginal.

Any Christian who proposes that the bible is indeed evidence for God’s existence is proposing a double standard. For there are many books which claim to be actual accounts of a higher power. With this in mind, why not believe in Allah from the Koran?

Could it be because your faith is what determines your belief and not your so called “factual” book?”

THIS IS THE SILLIEST ARGUMENT FOR AN ATHEIST TO MAKE….NOT ONLY DOES SHE HAVE ALL..NOT JUST SOME , BUT ALL HER FACTS MISPLACED! The bible is THE PROOF of God!

You see within the seed of Faith given to each believer is ALL the proof of God needed to get saved. BUT you must first believe to release that proof to your soul!

In the fist place, let’s give her the benefit of MUCH doubt. Let’s say she’s right, the bible is NOT the word of God..there is no God and no gods at all anywhere and without asking HOW IN A GODLESS WORLD MEN THOUGHT UP RELIGIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE?{ Oooppps! I asked!}

Where does her questioning take her?

I’ll tell YOU to my NEW CHALLENGE TO ATHEIST’S, WHICH IS THIS: And this is a very valid point!

Since there IS NO GOD AND RELIGION IS MAN-MADE, THE BIBLE INCLUDED- HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSAL PROBLEMS YOU BLAME ON GOD SO EMOTIONALLY TO PROVE GOD IS INCOMPETENT-DOESN’T THAT MEAN THAT IF THERE NEVER WAS A GOD TO BLAME….

THEN ATHEIST’S WERE IN CHARGE ALL ALONG WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPENED, IN FACT YOUR STILL IN CHARGE SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!

Text Goes in here!