Saying the things polite Christians don't.

Archive for September, 2013

Random Ramblings on Atheism

When I comment on a Utube clip and express my Christian faith I invariably come under attack from the atheist brigade. Just why these people seem intent on slathering abuse upon me mystifies me. I’m not an influential celebrity, and I’m not dragging hordes from the streets, depriving them of their liberty, to listen to my rhetoric. I’m just an ordinary man who believes in One Extraordinary.

Yet the abuse is that of the type you’d expect would fall upon pedophiles.

Why? Why the sentiments that fuel the attacks, and why the passion of their delivery?

I have a small understanding of the objections if I were witnessing on a secular site, but what about when the topic is Christian? And this raises a third question: why are atheists viewing and reading Christian material?

I have no objection to atheists visiting Christian sites. To the contrary; the more the better. Perhaps some will be saved by doing so.

Assuming then that the atheist is not viewing the video, reading the post, simply to cause trouble – and trust me, there are a lot that do – then why the interest? I don’t feel the need to visit atheist Web sites or Utube channels.

The only conclusion I can arrive at is that some people just like to know what’s over the fence.

Like the old tale of the elderly lady who calls the police because from her kitchen window she can see her neighbour sun-baking nude.

“I can’t see anyone nude,” the policeman told her as he peered through the window. “In fact I can barely see into his garden.”
“Silly policeman,” the old woman replied, “You have to stand on a chair and use these binoculars!”

Such is the atheist who watches a Christian video, reads a Christian blog or sermon, and can’t restrain himself.

Here’s a tip: watch something else if you are so offended! Isn’t that what you tell Christians when we protest about the sex and foul language on TV?

“Hey, Buddy. Censorship starts at home,” they say.

Well, swallow some of your own medicine. I’d love to see atheists watching Christian media. But not if the motive is a vendetta. In that case, “Beat it. Scram!”

Then we come to the atheist web site. Now, the term, Atheist Web Site, makes one think of a site whose primary message is the spread of glorious atheism, the wonderful feeling that when the wind is in your face and the wolf has torn down the front door, is snapping his chops, that you needn’t bother with prayer . . . that you’re on your own. . . .

Thank goodness I don’t have to pray at a time like this. Phew!

Atheism marketing itself. That’s what comes to mind when confronted with an atheist link, a UTube clip, podcast.

But no. Don’t be fooled. Their tenet is not Pro Atheism, but Anti Christianity.

I have yet to find an atheist site that holds the Hindus up to account. The Buddhists don’t get a mention. Nor do The Sikhs, Lamahists, Krishnas. For that matter I was pushed to find even a single reference to The-Religion-of-Peace. Nothing: despite the fact that they flew planes into the World Trade Center, killed 202 in the Kuta nightclub bombings in Bali, 2002, and on and on and on.

These people kill their daughters for honour. They mutilate the girl’s genitals by barbaric female circumcision, and for their entire lives Islamic women are treated as 2nd class. They will be denied equality on every front. A Muslim man treats his camel with greater dignity.
Not a mention of these good folk in the vast majority of atheist postings.

One of the more prominent sites, The Thinking Atheist, a contradiction in terms if there ever was one, is exclusively devoted to anti-Christianity. The owner of the site explains this by saying that Christianity is his or her background. Fair enough. But to only publish that which is within the writer’s personal experience can lead to a biased account of the truth.

Research is a dirty word to those seeking to discredit Christianity.

To say that there is no God is the height of ignorance. The atheist will say the same thing of Christians at this suggestion. The claim that to declare the existence of God is not only ignorant, but gullible.

There is a difference between the Christian claim for and the atheist claim against: the Christian can back up their assertion with changed lives, despair giving way to hope, with 1000s who had stood at the precipice and had come back – and the atheist can not.

(There is not room in 100 blog posts for a full exploration of the evidence for Christianity but it’s readily available for those prepared to look.)

That’s lives affected. Now the truly cynical might argue that this is subjective; lives healed, destructive habits cured – a man with an horrific drug addiction that had cost him his work, home and family, set free, and gone with the addiction the associated behaviours: lying, thieving etc (I’m writing of myself now) – this could be a unique perception. Despite the 1000s of similar stories to the contrary.

But Christianity is also supported by a profusion of objective evidence. There are at present over 5700 pages, or part pages, and over 2000 containing all or portions of the Gospels.

In 1946 in a system of caves not far from the Dead Sea were discovered what’s now widely known as The Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the 850 or so scrolls are now identified 19 copies of the Book of Isaiah, 25 copies of Deuteronomy and 30 copies of the Psalms.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this find was the proof of the accuracy of contemporary texts. The atheist can no longer argue that the Bible has been radically altered. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved the modern books to be 99% accurate. Segments have been found from over 500 manuscripts.

If scholars reject the accuracy of Biblical documents they must also reject that of Plato;7 copies, Homer; 643 copies for example. Documents supporting the New Testament number over 24,000.

This is by no means exhaustive. In fact I’ve only scratched the surface of Biblical evidence for the Holy Scriptures.

Then there’s the non Biblical evidence supporting Jesus and New Testament accounts. This list is quite understandably, not as voluminous, but it’s within an easy internet search.

Some people, however, will refuse to be convinced. They just will not believe. Then there are those who refuse to allow us the freedom to believe.

If you, like myself, live a pretty ordinary life in the west, you greatest opposition, discounting disgruntled family and friends, isn’t going to come from Islam, the Mormons or JWs, but from atheists. This is by far the most militant group the average citizen is likely to encounter.

I heard a great quote on the other day. It really made me smile.

Why would someone invest so much energy in fighting something they don’t even believe in?

That just about sums up all I’ve been trying to say for the last 1000 words or so. You don’t see the adults at Christmastime lining the malls chanting, “Santa is fake! Your gifts come from your parents!”

People just don’t usually put much effort into something they don’t believe in. Some may argue that Christianity damaged them and they want the world to know it. Fair enough. But once again, these folk just haven’t done their research.

Genuine Christianity, in belief and in practise, will never hurt anyone.

Jesus is the God of love. Love never harms. For the atheist who won’t consider that statement, who shuts off at the mere mention of His name, consider this.

The practise of the real spiritual principles found in genuine Christianity is never detrimental to a person’s physical, mental, or emotional health. It is simply not possible.

Just this morning I joined a Google discussion on the Evolution/Creation debate. I decided not to aggressively defend Christianity, which is my normal position, but to ask some fairly gentle, innocent questions of the evolutionists. Such as: Could you give me an example of evolution? How can we reliably know what happened 20 billion years ago? Assuming such a time existed.

Needless to say I was met with hostility and mockery. I don’t understand evolution I was told. I am a blind fool who has been led by the nose.

Okay. I’m an idiot. Enlighten me. If there is a clear example of evolution that cannot be contested, show me. I will keep an open mind.

No comers so far. Ironically the very folk who accuse the Christians of closed mindedness shut themselves off to the possibility of something other than their charter.

I’ll leave this post on that note. I am open to the possibility that I don’t have all the answers. I will listen to an evolutionist who wants to prove his case. I will hear them out if they don’t shout me down.

I wonder if they will do the same . . . . 🙂

Advertisements

Christian Pro-Choice? An Oxymoron

I was listening to Todd Friel on Wretched Radio the other day, while Todd was talking to students at a Catholic University. He was asking how people felt about the bill recently passed banning late term abortions. (This was a prerecorded podcast from 2011 but for the purposes of this post the date doesn’t matter).

I was really surprised to hear a couple of young women who identified as both Christians, and pro-choice.

Mhm. Really? Now that is an interesting position. See, my Bible says, Thou shall not kill. It’s probably one of the simplest commands and it’s not open to interpretation. We know what killing is. We know what happens when one is killed. It’s easily understood; don’t do it.

Jesus saw no need to correct the matter. In fact He reinforced it, telling us to turn the other cheek. The implicit understanding was to do this rather than striking back.

Now the questions which arise obviously at this point are, “Is the zygote, cell-cluster, embryo, foetus, alive? Did this union of sperm and egg, this conception, produce life, and at which point afterwards did life occur?”

Knowing that they will have to admit that abortion is murder if indeed the above is a human life – and what other kind could it be – the typical Pro-Choice blunder is to argue that it is not.
Life begins, they say, when the foetus is able to
live outside of the womb.
There are other responses the Pro-Choice lobby may give but the is the main one I’d like to shoot down.

The following is a portion of an article sourced from The Independant.ie

The large studies, led by teams at University College London (UCL) and Queen Mary, University of London, compared babies born between 22 and 26 weeks in 2006 with those born between 22 and 25 weeks in 1995.

The first examined immediate survival rates and health. Researchers found that overall survival rates increased by 13% during this period.
However, the proportion of premature babies who experience serious health problems has remained “largely unchanged”, according to two studies.

___________________________

Consider this: Preterm birth mortality is improving. It’s fair to say that this is due to advances in medical science, prenatal care and technology. In all likelihood this trend will continue.

It is easy to envision a time when technology will permit the premature birth to survive at any stage of its development. We can see the zygote growing to full term outside of the womb.

Now, when such a time arrives, and it will arrive, will medicine have accomplished the impossible and created life where there was none? Remember, life begins when the infant can live outside the womb (presently about 23 weeks). Ten minutes post conception presently has no chance.

When that conception can live outside the womb, albeit aided by technology, will the Pro-Choice people stand by their determination of when life begins? I hardly think so.

The stage of development at which life begins does seem to be the tipping point for those Christians who won’t take a life but will have an abortion. This person needs convincing of the fact that life begins at conception, not at a date determined by convenience.

It’s believed, that life starts when the foetus can live outside the mother’s body because a doctor said so. There is nothing to support this. As advances in science allow for this to happen at an earlier stage of development, the same reasoning says life must accordingly begin earlier.

That is absurd! Life either begins at 23 weeks or it does not. This is not flexible like the onset of puberty. One is alive or not alive.

Medical science may well be able to save a life, preventing it from expiring, but it cannot create life where there has been none.

This is the province of The Almighty God. The existence of life is one of the great evidences of our Creator. Scientists may alter, delay, advance and correct (any imperfections in the embryo which may be corrected by geneticists or surgeons exist as a result of the Fall and were not God’s intention), but they cannot create life.

Any expectant mother can tell you she is carrying a life well before 23 weeks. Even those intent on aborting the pregnancy, if they could hear the truth through the mountains of denial, would say the same.

Here’s a word for the atheist: Human beings are the only species that deliberately murder their unborn. Nature shrieks when a child is aborted. It goes against the harmonious operation of every atom in the universe. The miracle of birth disrupted.

God, the Master of Life, its Creator and Sustainer has a plan for you. He has a plan for every single one of us. He has a plan for the unborn child. Abortion disrupts that plan.

Getting back to the young women being interviewed by Todd Friel. How is it possible for a person to identify both as Pro-Choice, and as a Christian? If it isn’t a case of massive denial, it has to be a case of ignorance of the facts. This is assuming, of course, that the women are Christians. Many who say they are, are not.

The Lord said it is a narrow gate that few find. Put quite simply if she is a Christian, she would not find a premise on which to stand her Pro-Choice sentiments. She is most likely an unsaved woman who likes the idea of the abortion safety net? The Lord changes our thinking. A saved person would not, could not think that way.

Substitute any other sin in place of the word, ‘Abortion,’ and say the following: “I am a Christian who is in favour of theft. . . . In favour of adultery . . . of murder, lust, bigamy.”

If you can stomach that then perhaps you can say, “I am a Christian who is in favour of abortion.”

Harry K.