Discussion:
The Atheist Debate!
(too old to reply)
U2
2007-07-28 12:18:51 UTC
Permalink
The Atheist Debate

I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
person have done anything wrong?" He responded with this:

If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.

Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog? Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?

You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from? In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from? The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator. If there is no God but only
matter, why is anything right or wrong?

The debate over the existence of God has been a long one. The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1). American Vision has been on the front
lines in confronting the atheists head on. We've published two books:
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention. There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
The following was written by Ted Olson of CT magazine:

Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.

Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.

Next week, ABC's Nightline has Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.

No. Really. Nightline has tapped Kirk Cameron to be fidei defensor.

I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa Whelchel, Mr. T,
Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.

Instead, we'd rather hear from Douglas Wilson, author of the new book,
Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision). Wilson is senior fellow
of theology at New Saint Andrews College and minister at Christ Church in
Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has
written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A
Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. His Blog and
Mablog site inevitably makes for provocative reading.

Wilson will be corresponding with Christopher Hitchens, author of the new
book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything ( Twelve Books).
Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor
of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books,
including Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of
Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters. He was named,
to his own amusement, number five on a list of the "Top 100 Public
Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.

You'll enjoy the discussion regardless of whether you're already familiar
with Wilson and Hitchens. But if you are familiar with their work, you'll
know that it promises to be anything but boring.

by Gary DeMar
5/7/2007
V
2007-07-28 13:23:51 UTC
Permalink
The secular humanists talks a good talk...but in the end they have no
incentive to do right other than the fear of man made laws.

Atheists have little or no connection with their inner peace and they
do not operate under a fear of God, so they are left to their own
devices.

Lets look at a few of these atheists to get at the facts:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=529.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0

Until atheists become peace based, they will fail at being humane
humans, just as many theists fail since they are not authentic in
their practice, but run by fear alone.

Ask yourself why you wish to do something.

Is it for inner peace?

Or to massage your ego?

Or because it feels good?

Or to improve ones karmic debt?

Or to fit in...as Peter van Velzen had expressed?

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=646.0

Or because others say so?

Or to hurt another?

What is your driving force?

Fear based reasons for doing something are not authentic and natural
actions.

The persons actions are based on negative consequences otherwise they
would not do them.

My actions are based on inner peace and if I stray - there goes my
peace - it is my choice.

Put your inner peace foremost and you will have your answer. When you
align real and authentic actions with those that promote inner peace
you have found enlightenment.

The facts are this: when people are devoid of religion...they
generally stink as humans.

Until atheism can replace theist based religion as a VIABLE and REAL
way to inner peace, with a reverence of humanity, it can never take
over the world and extinguish religion.

When you get rid of one thing, it makes room for another.

Sure atheist can succeed at pointing to the flaws of religious
thought, but they have nothing to replace the flaws with.

So theists choose the lesser of two evils while on earth, with the
hopes of hitting the jackpot in the hereafter.

When atheists become successes at 'the religion of humanity,' you may
become more successful at replacing theist based religion.

Until that time..."a mans mind may be likened to a garden which may be
intelligently cultivated or allowed to run wild; but whether
cultivated or neglected, it must and will bring forth. If no useful
seeds are put into it, then an abundance of useless 'weed seeds' will
fall therein and will continue to produce their kind." ~ James Allen

And religion does a good job at controlling the weeds.

In its history, organized atheism has never succeeded at replacing
religion with real humanity and compassion.

The atheists talk a good story, but atheists fail miserably when it
comes to practical application of the 'peace talk.'

And really the vast majority of atheists don't even have 'the talk' to
spout, since they have no semblance of inner peace themselves in order
to form a basis of 'lip service' to pontificate.

Don't know what I mean?

I'm saying that most atheists are too ignorant when the subject turns
to inner peace to even lie about or pretend that they know anything
about the subject.

Another reason atheists will never win, is in general it takes hatred
to fuel atheism if one is a dogmatic, militant atheist.

Hatred blinds one to peace.

When you lose the hatred and militant foundation, then you do not wish
to destroy others or their religion....you are at peace to let them be
religious.

Sure you do not let others destroy you with religion, you tell them
the facts that they run by faith, so do not get too high and mighty
and start forcing you into the religion against your will.

But you only fight in a measured way of self defense, instead of the
offensive atheists that sets out to destroy 'all faith based beliefs'
just for the sheer joy of hurting another.

Sure tearing others down appeals to one's ego and pride, but so did
torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we need a
different way to find self worth.

As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds
and water these seeds within you as well.

As you give so you receive.

Is that from the bible or karma?

No, it is just universal law.

Do we like to be beaten down?

Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
as others peace.

It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in
peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up
to destroy it.

When I posted this paragraph earlier, an atheist piped to accuse me of
hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick it up to eat
it, so I am a liar.

Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.

If atheists can get over fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger
fish to fry they will see a world of difference in their peace
practice.

The destruction of inner peace by destroying potatoes comes about when
I destroy my neighbors crop field of potatoes by poisoning them to
bankrupt him in order to take over his farmland...it does not come
about by eating a potato.

The God of Nature gives me potatoes to eat, the God of Inner Peace
tells me to not eat potatoes in excess or to destroy others if I wish
to be at peace. I cannot see either God, I know not how these God's
work, I just know they are and I can abide by their guidance or be
defiant to these Gods and end up destroying my life and the lives of
others.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0

Yes, there are theists that stink. See: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/burning.html

I will be the first to admit that religion has done lots of harm but I
will also say religion done lots of right.

And just as the question of God cannot be answered with any certainty,
so goes the question of whether the world would have been better off
without religion or not.

It is a question that cannot be answered like it was in the movie
"It's a Wonderful life.'

But lets look at the facts and see that the vast, vast majority of
people are theists or believe in hereafter, so the pot is enormous
that we draw from when we pull out examples of evildoing theists that
the atheists like to parade around.

The USA was founded with God in the details. I suggest atheists that
hate a religious based country like the USA move to China or Russia.
Then you can live your dream right now, in your God free country.

In China, it was a common practice to execute political prisoners with
one bullet to the head...then they sent the bill for the bullet to the
family of the executed prisoner. That is where separation of state and
religion can lead a country. Once religion is out of politics, then
the only thing left in control is ego.

They say Hitler was a Catholic?

I don't know if he was Catholic or not.

I do know that Hitler did not practice even the most basic tenants of
Christianity.

It takes more than lip service to be a 'practicing' Catholic,
Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or Hebrew follower.


See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=380.0


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/125b41aa8fd2b87b/cf400bdf88ba1701?lnk=gst&q=conundrum&rnum=7&hl=en#cf400bdf88ba1701

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0

Now, some 'spiritually based atheist's can far surpasses many theists
in kindness and virtue many times...so it just depends on what 'type
of atheist' you are talking about? But these sort of atheists are very
rare to encounter, as spiritual values and atheism do not generally
mix.

"People that practice religion are worried about going to hell -
people that practice spirituality have already been to hell and don't
want to go back."

A lot of atheists I run into make their intellect their God. They do
not know that academic smarts are not the same as peace smarts. Until
they can transcend their ego they will never find the answer (peace)
they seek.

It is the same for those that think money is all that is standing
between them and happiness.

So it goes for the ego and intellect based person that is devoid of
spiritual values.

And if the atheists is honest they will see they do not run their
lives solely by logic and are no better than the theist that runs
their lives by faith.

No, logic only goes so far in life. For what is logical is not always
practical when it comes to humans ... is it?

Always remember...one thing only goes so far with giving a person a
good life. Seek balance.

Spiritual growth as well as humans are not perfect - but we can all do
better at being humans if we try to be more humane.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0

There are many flavors of atheists...natural atheists, personal
atheists, explicit atheists, implicit atheists weak atheists, strong
atheists, discovery atheists, reactionary atheists, indoctrinated
atheists and of course the bad ass atheists with attitude aka BAAWA
varieties.

But the defining characteristic that leads an atheist to peace is
whether they are a 'spiritual based atheist' or 'defiance based
atheist.''

The business of humanism is 'all our business' if we with to live life
at peace. Egocentricity is not good for spiritual work and we need to
be open to others ideas and embrace them as nourishment for your
growth and sustenance for life - as no one person is god.

As a freethinking agnostic I AM FREE to look for truth wherever the
road takes me. I discriminate against no one. As such, I study with
the Christians, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Taoists and
even find truth as I study with the atheists.

When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner
peace promotion. When you practice destroying others peace, you will
reap self destruction of inner peace.

I suggest any atheists wishing to find inner peace within their life
adopt the creed of the atheists (their version of prepackaged morals)
and become secular humanists as a good first start.

The 'informal creed' of atheism.

An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes
that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth
for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he
must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life,
to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a
knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will
help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow
man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital
should be built instead of a church.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer
said.

An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a
god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our
own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the
time is now."

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/



"The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles"

� We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

� We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to
explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature
for salvation.

� We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute
to the betterment of human life.

� We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is
the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian
elites and repressive majorities.

� We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
state.

� We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of
resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

� We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and
with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

� We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so
that they will be able to help themselves.

� We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of
humanity.

� We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other
species.

� We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our
creative talents to their fullest.

� We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

� We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to
fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to
exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and
informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

� We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity,
honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to
critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we
discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

� We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We
want to nourish reason and compassion.

� We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

� We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still
to be made in the cosmos.

� We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to
novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

� We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of
despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal
significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

� We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than
despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance,
joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love
instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of
ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

� We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that
we are capable of as human beings.

Council for Secular Humanism



Take care,


V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
Irv Hyatt
2007-07-28 16:05:32 UTC
Permalink
"V" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The secular humanists talks a good talk...but in the end they have no
incentive to do right other than the fear of man made laws.

Atheists have little or no connection with their inner peace and they
do not operate under a fear of God, so they are left to their own
devices.

Lets look at a few of these atheists to get at the facts:

***Ummmmm, let's not!

<CHOP>
Scot
2007-07-30 17:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by V
The secular humanists talks a good talk...but in the end they have no
incentive to do right other than the fear of man made laws.
The theists talk a good talk... but in the end they are little sheep who
blindly follow some self-contradictory Book out of the fear of punishment
from a mythical God.
Post by V
Atheists have little or no connection with their inner peace and they
do not operate under a fear of God, so they are left to their own
devices.
Theists have little or no connection with any real inner peace: they
operate under a fear of God.
jem
2007-07-28 15:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it.
Explain "it".
Does "it" render your atheist's statement invalid?
(you did not get a letter from an atheist right?)
Post by U2
Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
By relying on observations, lessons learned, guidance from adults,
understanding things similar to the golden rule (empathy/sympathy
etc). What they don't do is let bronze age idiots and religious
fuckups guide them.
Post by U2
Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog?
Why not ask the dog? Try getting a dog to answer questions about its
morality, and why does it hold the worldview it has.
If you understand why the dog does not answer, then you have the first
step in achieving your answer.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are actually
smarter than the dog.
Post by U2
Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
sneaky "random" bullshit....
Post by U2
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from?
Are you going to ask the same question ceaselessly?
Post by U2
In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from?
It's a long way from the first part of your sentence to the last part,
measured in billions of years, but it's your thickheaded way of asking
the question a third time eh?
Post by U2
The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator. If there is no God but only
matter, why is anything right or wrong?
Fourth time.
The god mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is "nature's
god". The "divine providence" mentioned is more a tactic to tell
Britain that their authority is no longer respected, not that god is
dictating anything to them. Further, just to clear shit up later the
first amendment establishes that government and god are not to be
entangled, the USA is capable of managing itself without going all
googoo eyed over gawd.
Post by U2
The debate over the existence of God has been a long one.
And you still don't get "it".
Post by U2
The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1).
Coming from a deluded idiot, that's a compliment then.
Incidentally, there is nothing to deny, refute the bullshit is more
accurate.
Post by U2
American Vision has been on the front
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention.
Not much attention apparently, never heard of them.
I suppose it's all over the religious news outlets huh?
Post by U2
There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.
Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.
Next week, ABC's Nightline has Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.
No. Really. Nightline has tapped Kirk Cameron to be fidei defensor.
I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa Whelchel, Mr. T,
Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.
Did you call Homer Simpson?
RU Liken IT Yet!
2007-07-28 15:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by jem
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it.
Explain "it".
Does "it" render your atheist's statement invalid?
(you did not get a letter from an atheist right?)
Post by U2
Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
By relying on observations, lessons learned, guidance from adults,
understanding things similar to the golden rule (empathy/sympathy
etc). What they don't do is let bronze age idiots and religious
fuckups guide them.
Post by U2
Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog?
Why not ask the dog? Try getting a dog to answer questions about its
morality, and why does it hold the worldview it has.
If you understand why the dog does not answer, then you have the first
step in achieving your answer.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are actually
smarter than the dog.
Post by U2
Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
sneaky "random" bullshit....
Post by U2
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from?
Are you going to ask the same question ceaselessly?
Post by U2
In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from?
It's a long way from the first part of your sentence to the last part,
measured in billions of years, but it's your thickheaded way of asking
the question a third time eh?
Post by U2
The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator. If there is no God but only
matter, why is anything right or wrong?
Fourth time.
The god mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is "nature's
god". The "divine providence" mentioned is more a tactic to tell
Britain that their authority is no longer respected, not that god is
dictating anything to them. Further, just to clear shit up later the
first amendment establishes that government and god are not to be
entangled, the USA is capable of managing itself without going all
googoo eyed over gawd.
Post by U2
The debate over the existence of God has been a long one.
And you still don't get "it".
Post by U2
The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1).
Coming from a deluded idiot, that's a compliment then.
Incidentally, there is nothing to deny, refute the bullshit is more
accurate.
Post by U2
American Vision has been on the front
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention.
Not much attention apparently, never heard of them.
I suppose it's all over the religious news outlets huh?
Post by U2
There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.
Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.
Next week, ABC's Nightline has Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.
No. Really. Nightline has tapped Kirk Cameron to be fidei defensor.
I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa Whelchel, Mr. T,
Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.
Did you call Homer Simpson?
Four Views of Salvation

In addition to identifying four kinds of unbelievers in terms of their views
of God, it is also helpful to recognize the distinct views of salvation to
which these four groups adhere. I believe that all people worldwide can
be grouped into one of four categories in terms of their perceptions of
salvation. These views more or less parallel the four kinds of unbelievers
above.

The first group of people believes in the God of Scripture but feels
unworthy of salvation or ignorant of the way of salvation.

The second group of people worships non-Christian gods and thinks it's
saved through other religions.

The third group does not believe in any kind of God at all, or thinks
God's unknowable if He does exist, and hence rejects the concept of
salvation. These are the agnostics and atheists.

The fourth group believes in the Christian concept of God but thinks it is
good enough to merit salvation. In other words, people in this group
believe God will accept them just as they are because they are basically
good people. Many of them believe that Jesus is their "Savior" but show
no indication by word or deed of having personally received Him or
committed their lives to Him.

Applying Law, Gospel, or Apologetics

You may be wondering why it's helpful to lump potential converts into
one of four groups. The reason is because it allows us to determine
whether to focus our evangelism on law, gospel, or apologetics. In
evangelism, we always apply one of the three.

Apologetics, of course, is defending the Christian faith. But let's pause a
moment and define law and gospel.

In the Old Testament we see three varieties of law. First are moral laws.
These were the ethical standards and principles by which the Israelites
were to live. Second are ceremonial laws. These were the laws that
regulated Israel's religious rituals. And the third are civil laws. These laws
maintained order in Jewish society.

The kind of law that I'm concerned with here is moral law, the timeless
ethical standards outlined in the Ten Commandments. (I will
subsequently refer to moral law as "law.") These laws applied not only to
the ancient Jews but also to all people of every generation up to the
present hour. Why? Because law represents what God demands of all
people in order to be saved. To put it another way, if it were possible for
people to get into heaven on their own merits, law tells what they would
have to do.

Gospel, however, tells us what God has done for us because we are
unable to fulfill the law. It's the free gift of forgiveness and salvation
through the work of Jesus Christ.

Let's see how law and gospel work together in evangelism. The Bible
teaches that God demands that all people live according to the law that
He has set before them. In fact, He attaches penalties for breaking the
law (i.e., for sinning). The ultimate penalty is eternal separation from God
(2 Thess. 1:9).

The problem is, no one is capable of keeping the whole law all the time.
The Bible clearly states this in Romans chapters 1-3 and in Galatians
chapter 3. The Old Testament makes the same claim. King Solomon
says in 1 Kings 8:46, "There is no one who does not sin."

Fortunately for the human race, God knew that nobody could keep all
the law all the time; that is, no one is capable of never sinning. In fact,
according to the Bible, the primary purpose of the law is to define sin
and to show that all people are sinners (see Rom. 7:7) and guilty before
a holy and righteous God. People are unable to save themselves through
their good works (see Gal. 2:16).

So God gave us the gospel, the "Good News" that Jesus Christ took the
punishment we deserve for our failure (and inability) to obey the law (see
Rom. 5:8). Because Jesus paid the price in full (6:23b), we have the
opportunity to become reconciled to God and to receive the gift of
eternal life. In short, the law condemns, but the gospel saves. The law
points us to the gospel of Christ as our only hope of salvation (see 8:1).

Now let's apply law, gospel, and apologetics to the four groups of
people in the two categories outlined above. The idea is to choose the
evangelistic approach that best fits the need of the individual according to
his position in these categories. We'll look at three biblical examples and
three non-biblical examples.

Biblical Examples

John 4:4-26 recounts the story of Jesus talking with the Samaritan
woman. This woman had been married five times and was living with yet
another man (v. 17). How did Jesus deal with her? Did He point out her
failure to obey the law? No. She knew she was a sinner (v. 29). Did
Jesus use apologetics to defend His messiahship? No. When He claimed
to be the Messiah (v. 26), the woman didn't challenge it. Instead, Jesus
proclaimed the gospel. He offered the woman forgiveness-"living
water" (vv. 10, 13-14). Scriptures records that many of the Samaritans
believed because of the woman's testimony (v. 39).

Luke 18:18-25 recounts a conversation between Jesus and a rich ruler.
The ruler asked Jesus what he must do to be saved. Jesus told him he
must obey the law. The man claimed that he had done so since his youth.
But Jesus pointed out that the ruler lacked one thing. He was unwilling to
forsake his earthly wealth to gain "treasure in heaven" (v. 22). In other
words, he fell short of earning salvation through his own good works. He
did not keep all the law. Jesus' evangelistic approach to the rich ruler
was to apply law. Gospel or apologetics were not needed in his case.

In Acts 17:16-34 Paul is in Athens. While waiting for Silas and Timothy
to join him, Paul was invited to speak to the Greek philosophers before
the Areopagus. Paul's evangelistic strategy was to apply apologetics.
The evidence he mustered included general revelation in nature (v. 24)
and the writings of the Greeks' own poets (v. 28).

We will examine this account in detail in chapter 6. The point for now is
that preaching gospel or law, without first applying apologetics, would
have been ineffective with the Greek philosophers because they were
pagans. They had no knowledge of Jesus Christ (v. 18) and certainly no
interest in obeying Jewish law. Paul used apologetics to lay the
groundwork for a presentation of the gospel in verses 30-31.

Modern Examples

Scenario One

Imagine that you are witnessing to someone who believes in God but has
not accepted Jesus Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. She knows
she's a sinner and that her lifestyle is unacceptable to God. She wants to
change; she yearns to experience God's love and acceptance. What do
we apply: law, gospel, or apologetics?

Gospel. Law and apologetics are unnecessary because this person
neither holds the idea that she is good enough to warrant salvation
independent of God's forgiveness through Jesus, nor does she harbor
intellectual obstacles to faith or practice a non-Christian religion.

Generally, a person like this falls into one of two categories. The first
recognizes that she's a sinner in need of God but believes that God will
never forgive her horrible sins. Perhaps she has had an abortion or sold
drugs to children. Whatever the reason, she's convinced she is doomed
to hell, and there is nothing she can do about it.

The second doesn't know how to be saved. Her problem is not that she
believes her sins are unforgivable, but that she doesn't know how to
achieve forgiveness. She has never heard of or understood God's
forgiveness through Christ. She doesn't know how to establish a
relationship with Jesus whereby He becomes her personal Lord and
Savior.

There are many people in liberal churches who fall into this latter
category. In fact, I'm an example. As a child and teenager, when I went
to church it was usually a liberal wing of the Presbyterian Church. I was
even baptized (sprinkled) when I was twelve years old. But I don't
remember ever hearing anything about receiving Jesus as my personal
Lord and Savior (John 1:12). This did not occur until I attended an
evangelical church as an adult.

In both of these cases-the one who thinks she can't be forgiven, as well
as the one who doesn't know how to be saved-our evangelistic
approach is to preach the good news of the gospel. These people need
to see that they are forgiven for any and all sins. Jesus accepts them
unconditionally where they are-regardless of their pasts. He saves
them. He changes their lives from the inside out. They don't have to
"clean up their act" before God accepts and forgives them.

Scenario Two

This person also believes in God. He knows who Jesus is and
acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God. He is somewhat familiar with
other essential Christian doctrines and accepts them as well-or at least
he doesn't disbelieve them. In other words, he identifies culturally with
Christianity. He believes he is a Christian and, as a result, is saved.

However, this person has never made a personal commitment to Christ.
Perhaps he was reared in a Christian home, went to Sunday school or
Mass, and was taught to believe that the Bible is true. Consequently, he
believes in Jesus but does not have a relationship with Him.

It's also possible that this person was discouraged-either by his
parents, friends, or by the values of secular society-from ever going to
church. In reality, it's not so much that he has rejected Christianity as that
he knows little to nothing about it. Many of today's young people, raised
in a post-Christian culture, have not received the benefit of even a
rudimentary education in Christianity. Jesus is little more than a name
seen on a billboard now and then.

In either case, this person assumes that he is saved because of the life he
lives. He thinks a Christian is someone who is basically good in God's
eyes. In other words, God will accept him in spite of his "little" sins.
When questioned about this, he replies, "I don't drink, steal, or cheat on
my spouse. I pay my taxes and give to charity. I even go to church now
and then-and give to the offering. I'm a good person. I do the best I
can. God will accept me into heaven."

You see, many people today think of sin and forgiveness in terms of
moral relativity. They seem to believe their lives will be graded according
to their behavior. If they've only committed little sins, such as telling
white lies or stealing pens from the office, they figure they will receive
high enough grades (A's and B's) to go to heaven. In-between sins, such
as cheating on their taxes or adultery, can still be balanced by good
deeds. So, although their lives may receive slightly lower grades (C's and
D's), they still make it to heaven. Only really "bad" sins-drugs, rape, or
murder, for example-receive the F that will send prople to hell.

What do we apply to the person who thinks he's good enough to get
into heaven because of the life he lives-law, gospel, or apologetics?

Law. This person needs to see that becoming a Christian is a personal
commitment to Jesus, not something into which one is born. Nor is
salvation dependent on how good one is. This person needs to see that
he is a sinner in need of a Savior. He can never be good enough to earn
salvation on his own. Neither he, nor anyone else, can stand before God
and claim he is worthy of heaven on his own merits.

Proclaiming law is a four-step process, and it's worth taking a moment
to go over it step-by-step.

First, we point out from Scripture that everyone is a sinner. Everyone
falls short of God's requirements for an obedient life, a life worthy of
entry into heaven. No one can live a perfect, sin-free life (Rom. 3:10-18,
23).

Unbelievers need to understand that sin is not just bad deeds. In fact,
people commit sins they are not even aware of, or realize are sins. For
example, private, unexpressed thoughts can be sin (see Matt. 5:27-28).
Not doing something when we know we should can also be a sin (see
James 4:17).

Second, we explain that committing even one sin is equivalent to
breaking all the law and causes one to fall under God's judgment (James
2:10). A holy God cannot tolerate sin. He would not be holy if He
did.?4?

Third, the penalty of sin (breaking the law) is spiritual death, eternal
separation from God (Rom. 6:23a).

Fourth, (the good news is) we can be forgiven for any and all sins
through Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23b).

Now, I'm not so presumptuous as to declare that all people who claim
to be Christians but don't act like it are unsaved. There are carnal
Christians (backslidden Christians living sinful lives, see 1 Cor. 3:15;
5:1-5; 2 Tim. 2:11-13). Moreover, as said, everyone sins, including
Christians. But I am saying two things that "cultural Christians" need to
hear.

First, I don't see how anyone can be certain of his salvation-even if he
is saved-unless he has experienced the life-transforming power of God.
If so-called cultural Christians are saved (and only God knows that for
certain), we still need to encourage them to make Jesus the Lord of their
lives, not just their Savior. They need to see, as Professor Philip
Kenneson points out,

It does absolutely no good for us to sit here and insist that the
proposition "Jesus is Lord of the universe" is objectively true while at the
same time we live our lives in such a way that this lordship remains
completely invisible. If Christians feel compelled to claim that Jesus is
Lord of the universe, then that lordship must be visible somewhere.?5?

Second, I'm certain that there are many thousands of people in this
country today (including in the church) who are confident that they are
destined for salvation when in fact they are not. They believe they are
Christians when nothing in their lives demonstrates it. If someone were to
ask them the question, "What is there about your life that would compel
me to believe you are a Christian," they would have nothing to point to.
Even if they claim to have made personal commitments to Jesus, they
have never changed in terms of transformed lives since the day they first
believed. They are more secular in their lifestyles than Christian. I believe
that they're not saved.

Francis Schaeffer makes an observation here that's worth repeating:

We should realize that the word Christian can legitimately be used in two
ways. The primary meaning is: an individual who has come to God
through the work of Christ. The second meaning must be kept distinct
but also has validity. It is possible for an individual to live within the circle
of that which a Christian consensus brings forth, even though he himself is
not a Christian in the first sense.?6?

If I understand correctly what Schaeffer is saying here, he is pointing out
that people can live within a Christian framework and promote Christian
morals and ideals and yet not actually be Christians themselves. Certainly
promoting Christian principles does not automatically make one a
Christian.

Isn't this borne out in Scripture? In Matthew 7:21 Jesus says, "Not
everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

I'm also reminded of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in
Luke 18:9-14. The Pharisee boasted of his good works and the money
he gave to the temple. But the tax collector, who would not even look up
to heaven, beat his breast and cried out, "God, have mercy on me, a
sinner." Jesus concluded the parable by saying, "I tell you that this man,
rather than the other, went home justified before God." People who are
not justified before God do not go to heaven.

I firmly believe that these pseudo-Christians need to be evangelized
every bit as much as the person who knows she's a miserable sinner.
The odds are they aren't saved. They adhere, like the Pharisees, to a
work-righteous concept of salvation, where one can earn entrance into
heaven. One can be good enough to be saved independent of the work
of Christ. Probably everyone has a family member, a friend, or knows
someone who attends a church who fits this description.

I know it is not easy to do, but if we want to take evangelism seriously,
we must confront these people. We do this through the avenue of
proclaiming law. We point out the consequences of rejecting Jesus Christ
and trying to gain heaven on our own terms. Jonathan Edwards, in his
famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," makes this
relevant observation:

If we could ask . [people in hell if] when they were alive and heard of
hell, they ever expected to suffer its misery, they would doubtless say,
"No, I never intended to come here. I had other plans. I thought I could
manage well and my scheme was sound. I intended to carry out all of my
plans, but death took me by surprise. I wasn't looking for it at that time
or in that way. It came like a thief in the night. Death outsmarted me.
God's wrath was too quick for me. O my cursed foolishness! All this
time I was flattering myself with empty dreams of what I would do later.
And just when I was saying to myself, 'Peace and safety,' destruction
overcame me."?7?

Scenario Three

This person rejects Christianity in its entirety. He does so for one of three
reasons: (1) he practices some other religion, (2) he is an agnostic or an
atheist, or (3) he harbors genuine intellectual objections that prevent him
from seriously considering Christianity. Do we apply law, gospel, or
apologetics?

Apologetics. Sharing the gospel with an agnostic, atheist, or a devout
Buddhist will probably be a waste of time. At best, Jesus is
acknowledged as merely a good person, a great prophet, or one of
many gods; but He is not a member of the triune Godhead and Savior of
the world in the Christian sense.

Likewise, proclaiming law to an agnostic, atheist, or Buddhist will
probably be a waste of time. These people reject the Christian concept
of God and the Bible as His revealed Word. Why then should they
respond to what the Bible teaches in terms of sin and punishment?
Apologetics is in order.

Here's how we apply apologetics in these cases. If the unbeliever is an
agnostic or atheist, we provide compelling apologetic evidence that God
exists and can be known. If an unbeliever encounters intellectual
obstacles to Christianity, we identify these issues and overcome them. If
the person adheres to a non-Christian religion, we challenge him to
provide evidence for his belief. We point out inconsistencies, hidden
assumptions, historical and prophetic inaccuracies, and lack of
verification. We demonstrate that Christianity, alone among the world's
religions, is internally and externally consistent, objectively verifiable, and
subjectively true.?8?

Have I Left Out the Holy Spirit?

I fully realize that many agnostics, atheists, and followers of non-Christian
religions have responded to the gospel without apologetics. This is
because the Spirit of God prepared them to respond. Professor Mark
Hanna correctly said,

No apologetic can be truly Christian unless it conforms to Scriptural
teaching about the Holy Spirit
. Since the purpose of apologetics only terminates in a ministry to
persons, it is radically defective if it fails to accommodate itself to the
work of the Holy Spirit in convicting and converting human beings.

Scripture is unequivocal in its teaching that apologetics, no less than the
proclamation of the gospel, is ineffective without the action of the Holy
Spirit upon the human heart (1 Cor. 12:3).?9?

The Holy Spirit is always the agent of conviction and conversion.
However, it needs to be seen that the Holy Spirit can work through any
avenue He chooses, including avenues other than the gospel. If God has
not prepared a person to respond to gospel or law, apologetics comes
into play. Indeed, apologetics is often used by the Holy Spirit to lay a
foundation for future conversion. In other words, apologetics is planting
and watering (pre-evangelism). This is a necessary first step on the road
to salvation for many people (see 1 Cor. 3:6-7).

The Apologetic Mission

Let's tie this together. Law, gospel, and apologetics complement one
another. They do not work independently; they work together. They are
mutually inclusive.

We always initiate a witnessing opportunity with the gospel message (see
chap. 2). If objections are raised, we switch to apologetics. When we
have overcome an unbeliever's objections, we switch from apologetics
back to gospel. However, if the person persists in rejecting the gospel in
spite of the evidence, we apply law. We point out that she is an unsaved
sinner and explain the consequences of willfully rejecting Jesus Christ. All
three facets of evangelism work together.

One final thought before we move on. Even if we succeed in removing a
person's intellectual objections to Christianity, or even if we have
demonstrated the fallacious nature of his presently held religious or
secular worldview, this alone may not be sufficient to compel an
individual to accept Christianity.

Nevertheless, we have done something of great value. We have brought
that person face-to-face with Jesus Christ. He is at a point where it is
clear that his rejection of Christianity is not for intellectual reasons.
Rather, it's willful and irrational. Why? Because the decision to reject
Christianity in spite of the evidence is a choice one makes against the
facts. And if it's willful and irrational, then the real reason for rejecting
Christianity is a moral or emotional commitment to unbelief. The
unbeliever does not want to accept the lifestyle changes that will naturally
occur once Jesus is accepted as Lord and Savior, and once he begins to
live a Christian life. He does not want to be accountable to God.

Sadly, an unbeliever who refuses to accept Christ for this reason does
not realize that any lifestyle changes that occur are because God Himself
places the desire to change (and the ability to do so) within him. This is
the work of the Holy Spirit (see John 14:17; 1 Cor. 6:19; Gal. 5:24-25;
2 Tim. 1:7). Unbelievers do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit prior to
conversion. They do not understand that it is the Holy Spirit who makes
the changes, not themselves (1 Cor. 2:14). This needs to be explained.

Two Personality Types

Besides the four kinds of people we encounter in terms of their blief in
God and view of salvation, we can also group unbelievers into one of
two personality types. This too is an aid to evangelism because it
provides clues as to when apologetics is appropriate and when it should
be avoided.

The first time I heard the idea of categorizing potential converts
according to one of two personality types was in a taped seminar on
apologetics taught by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery.?10? Dr.
Montgomery referred to people as either "tough-minded" or "tender-
minded." To some degree, this parallels modern psych-ology's concept
of "right-brained" and "left-brained" personality types.

The idea is this. Once we judge that apologetics is the correct
evangelistic approach, according to an unbeliever's view of God and
salvation as outlined above, the tough- and tender-minded categories can
be used to determine the kind of apologetics tactic we employ.

Let me give a brief summary of tough- and tender-minded personalities
before we make an application.

Tough-Minded

Tough-minded people are primarily concerned with objective truth (truth
that exists independent of personal beliefs, feelings, and experiences;
truth that is verifiable). These people are rationally motivated; that is,
things must be logical-make sense-before they'll believe it. They are
the people who want so-called "scientific proof" before they will accept
something. Hence, to the tough-minded, belief is bound up with
evidence. Like Jack Webb in the 1960s television show Dragnet, they
want "Just the facts, ma'am!"

Tough-minded people are the ones who usually raise intellectual
objections to Christianity. The road to belief has many obstacles. They
need their questions answered and their doubts resolved before they will
accept biblical truth-claims. Conse-quently, tough-minded people are not
moved by subjective religious experiences. Personal testimonies or
dramatic, life-transforming conversion experiences are usually
unconvincing to them.

Tough-minded people tend to look for natural explanations for religious
phenomena. They are skeptics of anything with a hint of the supernatural.
For example, a religious conversion is merely a psychological
phenomenon. A miraculous healing is attributed to the so-called power
of suggestion or to positive thinking. Answered prayer is seen as
coincidence, a natural occurrence whose timing simply coincided with
prayer; it would have happened anyway.

Although we should initiate a witnessing encounter with the gospel, in
most cases this approach is ineffective with tough-minded people. They
almost always raise objections or shrug us off. We usually have to work
our way up to a gospel presentation by removing intellectual obstacles.
In a sense, we have to earn the right to give a gospel presentation.

On the brighter side, as Montgomery explains, tough-minded people are
more likely to listen to the facts and go with them. If they are convinced
by the evidence, they are more likely to alter their existing worldview
assumptions and go with Christianity.

As with all genuine conversions to Christianity, the Holy Spirit is involved
in the conversion of tough-minded people. But tough-minded people
come to Christ through their heads rather than their hearts, through their
intellects rather than their feelings. In other words, rather than law or
gospel, the Holy Spirit uses the intellect-often through extra-biblical
(apologetic) evidences-to reveal spiritual truth to tough-minded people.
Apologetics is the key to evangelizing these individuals.

As an interesting side note, once a tough-minded person becomes
converted, he finds great pleasure in continuing to pursue the intellectual
side of Christianity. A theological study can be as spiritually uplifting to
him as a praise song is to the tender-minded. Speaking of himself, C. S.
Lewis said,

I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the
devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may
await many others. I believe that many who find that "nothing happens"
when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find
that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a
tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their
hand.?11?

Tender-Minded

Tender-minded people, on the other hand, are more influenced by
subjective truth (truth that is not based on anything outside one's
personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences; truth that is not dependent
on external verification). Tender-minded people are sensitive to feelings.
They crave emotional fulfillment more than intellectual fulfillment. Does
Christianity "feel" right? Does it satisfy my deepest emotional and
spiritual needs? Will it heal my hurts and bring me inner happiness and
peace of mind?

Normally, tender-minded people do not need extra-biblical evidences to
convince them that Christian truth-claims are valid. It doesn't matter
whether Christianity is verified by historical, scientific, legal, and other
proofs. Subjective proof-inner confirmation-is enough. What matters
is that Christianity provides a heartfelt relationship with God and that it
explains the world in a way that is emotionally and spiritually satisfying.

Tender-minded people are usually responsive to real-life accounts of the
life-changing power of God. They will willingly listen to our personal
testimonies and other religious experiences. How has faith in Christ
changed our lives? What does a relationship with Jesus mean to us? With
them we share the emotional healing and inner strength that a relationship
with Jesus provides. In other words, we demonstrate though our own
experiences how Christianity appeals to the hearts and souls of people.

Tender-minded people are also sensitive to word pictures, stories, and
analogies. We can use these as subjective apologetic tools. Alister
McGrath gives examples of this that are worth quoting. Although his
focus is explaining theological concepts through analogy, I believe his
illustrations apply equally well to tender-minded people.

Theology is able to use words in such a way as to offer some pointers
for the benefit of those who have yet to discover what it feels like to
experience God. It uses a cluster of key words to try and explain what it
is like to know God, by analogy with words associated with human
experience. It is like forgiveness-in other words, if you can imagine
what it feels like to be forgiven for a really serious offense, you can begin
to understand the Christian experience of forgiveness. It is like
reconciliation-if you can imagine the joy of being reconciled to
someone who matters very much to you, you can get a glimpse of what
the Christian experience of coming home to God is like. It is like coming
home after being away and alone for a long time, and perhaps fully
expecting never to be able to return. Apologetics uses analogies like
these to try and signpost . the Christian experience of God, for the
benefit of those who [like the tender-minded] have yet to have this
transforming experience.?12?

In light of the needs of these two distinct personality types, it is beneficial
to determine whether the person you are witnessing to is tough- or
tender-minded and to tailor your approach accordingly. A tough-minded
person needs hard evidence. A tender-minded person needs to see that
Christianity works, that it will meet personal needs at an emotional and
spiritual level, and that it's personally satisfying.

Summary

By knowing what kind of an unbeliever you are encountering in terms of
belief in God and perception of salvation; by knowing when to apply
law, gospel, or apologetics; and by discerning the difference between a
tough-minded and tender-minded person, your effectiveness in
evangelism will be greatly enhanced.

Presenting law or applying apologetics to a tender-minded person who
already knows she's a sinner separated from God, is unnecessary. She
doesn't need convincing. Share what Jesus has done for you and will do
for her. Apply gospel.

The tough- or tender-minded person who thinks he's "good enough" to
enter heaven on his own merits needs to see that no one is sinless, no
one is to stand before a just and holy God and plead innocent. No one
gains admittance to heaven based on his own behavior. No one's that
good. Apply law.

For the tough-minded person adhering to a non-Christian religion,
explain that her existing beliefs, no matter what they are, will not stand up
to critical scrutiny. Demonstrate that Christianity is the only sustainable
option in the area of religious truth. Apply apologetics.

For the tender-minded person adhering to a non-Christian religion,
illustrate from your own experiences how Christianity provides true
emotional and spiritual fulfillment. Explain that other religions are
demonstrably counterfeit. Therefore, any emotional or spiritual fulfillment
one experiences through them is likewise counterfeit. Apply apologetics
graced with gospel.

Giving your personal testimony to a tough-minded agnostic or atheist,
who considers all religions human fabrications, is likely to be ineffective.
Identify and respond to his particular issues. Apply apologetics.

On the other hand, giving your personal testimony or sharing your
religious experiences with a tender-minded atheist or agnostic may be
effective. Objective apologetic evidence may not be as important as
subjective confirmation.

The apologetic mission, then, in all these cases, is to demonstrate that if
God exists at all, and if He has revealed Himself to humanity, it is only
through the Christian religion. There are no alternatives. Tailoring our
evangelism according to the needs of the individual to whom we are
witnessing will help us reach this goal. I believe this is what the apostle
Paul meant when he wrote, concerning his own witnessing approach, "I
have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might
save some" (1 Cor. 9:22).

[1]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 This doesn't mean that all sins are equal. In Matthew 23:23 Jesus
points out that there are "more important matters of the law." In John
19:11, He states that Caiaphas "is guilty of a greater sin" than Pilate. And
in Luke 12:47-48, Jesus tells a parable in which a person who does not
know he is sinning receives less punishment than the one who does.
These three passages imply that some sins are worse than others, and
that the punishment will fit the sin. The point is, all sins are intolerable to
God, and were it not for Jesus, we would receive just punishment for
even one sin.

5 Philip D. Kenneson, "There's No Such Thing As Objective Truth, and
It's a Good Thing, Too," in Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern
World, ed. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 168.

6 Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Old Tappan, N.J.:
Revell, 1976), 110.

7 Jonathan Edwards, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," in Made
Easier to Read, ed. John Jeffery Fanella (Phillipsburg, N.J.: R & R
Publishing, 1996), 14.

8 What I mean by "subjectively true" is that Christianity works. It alone
provides answers to profound and perplexing questions in a way that is
in complete harmony with human nature as most people understand it
and live it out. For example, only Christianity adequately explains the
source of evil and the solution to human suffering (see my book
Defending Your Faith [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997], chap. 13). Only
Christianity adequately accounts for the undeniable existence of human
sin. Only Christianity is transcultural in that its moral teachings intuitively
fit all cultures and all periods of history.

9 Mark M. Hanna, Crucial Questions in Apologetics (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1981), 60-61.

10 John Warwick Montgomery, "A Word for Those Who Think with
Their Feelings." This is a portion of a taped seminar titled Sensible
Christianity, recorded by the Institute for Law and Theology, Newport
Beach, Calif., 1981.

11 C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970),
205.

12 Alister McGrath, A Passion for Truth (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity, 1996), 86-87.

[1]Story, D. (1999). Engaging the closed minded : Presenting your faith
to the confirmed unbeliever (17). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications.
jem
2007-07-28 16:52:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:34:54 -0400, "RU Liken IT Yet!"
<***@NOThotmail.com> wrote:

787 lines, and no answer, no thought, just copy'n paste.

I guess I was wrong about the dog, it is probably smarter.
RU Liken IT Yet!
2007-07-28 19:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by jem
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:34:54 -0400, "RU Liken IT Yet!"
787 lines, and no answer, no thought, just copy'n paste.
I guess I was wrong about the dog, it is probably smarter.
UR Welcome!
Al Klein
2007-07-30 04:51:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:30:50 +0200, jem <***@airmail.net> wrote:

[piggybacking]
Post by U2
Post by U2
I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
There's no "moral worldview". Amoral people - like you - just don't
get morality, any more than colorblind people get the difference
between chartreuse and green-yellow.

Moral people are born with something amoral people aren't - morality.
We do the right thing because it's right, not because some book tells
us to do it.
Post by U2
Post by U2
Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog?
Because "murder", a legal term, is defined that way.
Post by U2
Post by U2
Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
Because some of those randomly formed atoms were formed with a sense
that tells them so. That's about as close as an amoral person can get
to what "morality" is. To us, religion is something someone else has.
To you, morality is something someone else has. You need to get your
ideas of right and wrong from somewhere, and you don't have any
internal ones, so you get them from a book. Some of you get it from
one or another book in the Bible, some get it from the Koran, some
from other books. There's no difference.
Post by U2
Post by U2
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from?
Morality. Allowing you your beliefs is the right thing to do. So is
not allowing your beliefs to harm anyone else.
Post by U2
Post by U2
In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from?
Morality. You might as well ask, if you were colorblind, "where does
this concept of 'red' come from?" No one can explain it to you.
Colorblind people can't see colors - people with color vision can -
and no amount of explanation will allow a colorblind person to
"understand" colors.
Post by U2
Post by U2
The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator.
The DofI isn't talking about the Christian god. Why would it when the
majority of the people involved in drafting it were Deists (who
believed that the Creator Created - then left. Period.)?
Post by U2
If there is no God but only
Post by U2
matter, why is anything right or wrong?
If there is no God but only matter, why is anything red or green?

Accept the fact that you're colorblind and move on. It's nothing to
be ashamed of.
Post by U2
Post by U2
The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1).
It also says that anyone (it makes no exceptions) who calls another
"fool" is doomed to hell, so we know where the author of that verse
has been for the last few thousand years.

Or the Bible is just an ancient load of horse shit. You choose.
Post by U2
Post by U2
American Vision has been on the front
lines in confronting the atheists head on. We've published two books
"We"? There's an old Russian folk tale about the elephant and the
flea. Anyone with a Russian background is looking for your wings.
Post by U2
Post by U2
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention.
Who cares?
Post by U2
Post by U2
There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
Again, who cares that Hitchens is crass enough to allow himself to be
dragged into a "debate" with an idiot just to sell books?
LJ Fan Club
2007-07-31 12:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
[piggybacking]
Post by U2
Post by U2
I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
There's no "moral worldview". Amoral people - like you - just don't
get morality, any more than colorblind people get the difference
between chartreuse and green-yellow.
Moral people are born with something amoral people aren't - morality.
We do the right thing because it's right, not because some book tells
us to do it.
Post by U2
Post by U2
Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog?
Because "murder", a legal term, is defined that way.
Post by U2
Post by U2
Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
Because some of those randomly formed atoms were formed with a sense
that tells them so. That's about as close as an amoral person can get
to what "morality" is. To us, religion is something someone else has.
To you, morality is something someone else has. You need to get your
ideas of right and wrong from somewhere, and you don't have any
internal ones, so you get them from a book. Some of you get it from
one or another book in the Bible, some get it from the Koran, some
from other books. There's no difference.
Post by U2
Post by U2
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from?
Morality. Allowing you your beliefs is the right thing to do. So is
not allowing your beliefs to harm anyone else.
Post by U2
Post by U2
In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from?
Morality. You might as well ask, if you were colorblind, "where does
this concept of 'red' come from?" No one can explain it to you.
Colorblind people can't see colors - people with color vision can -
and no amount of explanation will allow a colorblind person to
"understand" colors.
Post by U2
Post by U2
The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator.
The DofI isn't talking about the Christian god. Why would it when the
majority of the people involved in drafting it were Deists (who
believed that the Creator Created - then left. Period.)?
Post by U2
If there is no God but only
Post by U2
matter, why is anything right or wrong?
If there is no God but only matter, why is anything red or green?
Accept the fact that you're colorblind and move on. It's nothing to
be ashamed of.
Post by U2
Post by U2
The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1).
It also says that anyone (it makes no exceptions) who calls another
"fool" is doomed to hell, so we know where the author of that verse
has been for the last few thousand years.
Or the Bible is just an ancient load of horse shit. You choose.
Post by U2
Post by U2
American Vision has been on the front
lines in confronting the atheists head on. We've published two books
"We"? There's an old Russian folk tale about the elephant and the
flea. Anyone with a Russian background is looking for your wings.
Post by U2
Post by U2
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention.
Who cares?
Post by U2
Post by U2
There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
Again, who cares that Hitchens is crass enough to allow himself to be
dragged into a "debate" with an idiot just to sell books?
. Living Water

To commemorate the miraculous provision of water, a procession of
priests would draw water from the pool of Siloam and pour it out on the
floor of the temple courtyard during each day of the feast. On the eighth
day, the last day, the great day of the feast, however, the priests would
return from the pool of Siloam with empty vessels, signifying that when
the Israelites entered the Promised Land, water from the rock was no
longer needed. The Feast of Tabernacles not only commemorated the
past-it anticipated the future.[1]

(John 7:38 NASB)

38 "He who believes in Me, ?a?as the Scripture said, 'From
?1?his innermost being will flow rivers of ?b?living water.' " [2]


The expression "out of his heart will flow rivers of living water" means
out of the person's inward parts or inner life would flow streams of help
to others.[3]

Question. Are you willing to hold to the truths of the "Power" that
ignites the church to do the work of God?

In addition to the Bible, the book Living Water[4], by senior pastor
Chuck Smith is the main commentary reference tool for the subject of
this report, the Holy Spirit. Other commentaries are exercised to
complement the main points of this report.

Introductory Excerpt.

Jesus promised His bewildered disciples that He would not leave them
as orphans, but that He would pray to the Father who would send them
another Comforter who would come alongside to help them and would
abide with them forever. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would teach
them all things and bring to their remembrance all the things that He had
commanded them.

· He is to conform you into the image of Christ

· He is to come alongside of you to help you in your walk

· He is to teach you all things

· He is to give you an understanding of spiritual things

· He is to give you the power to be a witness of Jesus Christ

There is a vast difference between being filled with the Holy Spirit and
having the Holy Spirit flow forth out of your life like a torrent of
living
water.

The major portion of this report is taken from an exegesis of (1
Corinthians 12).

As a foundational prerequisite, we will use the introductory material
from (1 Corinthians 13).



I. Love Is Essential (13:1-3)



The word "charity" means "love" in action. It is not simply an emotion;
it is the heart reaching out to others. "Charity" today makes us think of
giving away old clothes or making gifts to "charitable institutions."
These activities can be Christian love in action, but Paul is demanding
much more. The word he uses for love is agape, which is love that
sacrifices for the good of others.[5]

It takes the indwelling of the Spirit of God in the life, and the
empowering of the Spirit, for anyone to display this kind of character in
daily life.

In (1 Corinthians 13), Paul is still dealing with the question of
spiritual gifts. Here he is emphasizing the fact that gifts without
graces are nothing. The fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) is more
important in the Christian life than the miraculous gifts of the Spirit.
Whenever the church strives for miraculous experiences rather than
Christian holiness and character, there will be division, confusion, and
carnality.[6]

We find a reference to the Holy Spirit in the second verse of the Bible,
and the teaching goes right the way through. This amazing unity is proof
of the unique, divine inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures.[7]

One of the major tragedies today is the low spiritual life of the Church,
today or at any time, is largely due to the fact that so many fail to
realize
the truth concerning the person and the work of the Holy Spirit.[8]

Who is the Holy Spirit?

In Living Water, the Holy Spirit is referred to as:

"Personality Plus."
What a handy One to have around!
God's Special Agent
The Spirit a Person
The Church's Divine Helper - Here to Help
Director of activities (1 Corinthians 12) - our main focus in this report
The Manifold Grace Of God

(John 14:16, 17 NASB)

Role of the Spirit

16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another
?1??a?Helper, that He may be with you forever;

17 that is ?a?the Spirit of truth, ?b?whom the world cannot
receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know
Him because He abides with you and will be in you. [9]

The word Helper (Paraclete) means one called to the side of another to
help. It is also translated Advocate (1 Jn. 2:1).

(1 John 2:1, 2 NASB)

Christ Is Our Advocate

1 ?a?My little children, I am ?b?writing these things to you so
that
you may not sin. And if anyone sins, ?c?we have an ?1??d?Advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

2 and He Himself is ?a?the ?1?propitiation for our sins; and not
for
ours only, but also ?b?for those of the whole world. [10]

The Lord Jesus is our Advocate or Helper, and the Holy Spirit is another
Helper-not another of a different kind, but another of similar nature.
The Holy Spirit would abide with believers forever.

The Holy Spirit is described as the Holy Spirit in order to differentiate
Him from the other spirits-the evil, or sometimes called the familiar
spirits. That is why we are told to test the spirits and to prove them,
and to know whether they are of God or not (1 John 4:1).[11]


Another translation uses "Comforter": Parakleton, "one summoned along
side to help." Appears 4X in John's Gospel (Jn 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7)
and is used one time as a title of Christ ("Advocate") in 1 John 2:1.[12]

Com, "to be in company with"; fortis, to strengthen. Comforter = to
strengthen by companionship [Noah = Comfort.]

He is also called "the Spirit of Truth." The Spirit uses the Word to
convict sinners and to direct saints, and God's Word is truth (17:17).
The world cannot receive the Spirit because He comes in response to
faith.[13]

(1 John 4:1 NASB)

Testing the Spirits

1 ?a?Beloved, do not believe every ?b?spirit, but test the
spirits to see whether they are from God, because ?c?many false
prophets have gone out into the world. [14]

Having mentioned the Holy Spirit, John is reminded that there are other
spirits abroad in the world today, and that the children of God need to
be warned against them. Thus he cautions the believer not to trust every
spirit. The word spirit here probably refers primarily to teachers but
not exclusively so. Just because a man speaks about the Bible, God, and
Jesus does not mean that he is a true child of God. We are to test the
spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone
out into the world. These are people who profess to accept Christianity,
but teach another gospel altogether[15]

Your Body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

(1 Corinthians 6:19 NASB)

19 Or ?a?do you not know that ?b?your body is a ?1?temple of
the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from ?2?God, and that
?c?you are not your own? [16]

Three Phases of the Holy Spirit.

1. para - to come along side

2. en - indwelling, in you (one of permanent residence)

3. epi - to come upon (1 Corinthians 12)


(1 Peter 4:10 NASB)

10 ?a?As each one has received a special gift, employ it in
serving one another as good ?b?stewards of the manifold grace of
God. [17]


Each believer has received a gift from the Lord, some special function to
perform as a member of the Body of Christ. These gifts are a
stewardship from God. They are not to be used for selfish gain but for
His glory and for the good of others.[18]

His grace reaches us but should not end with us. We are intended to be
channels through whom the blessing can flow to others.

We are to be good stewards of the manifold grace of God. The grace of God
here refers to the undeserved favor which He offers to man. Manifold
literally means multi-colored or variegated. Phillips translates it
"magnificently varied." [19]

Use of the Spiritual Gifts

The Tragedy - Attacks on the Holy Spirit.

The person of the Holy Spirit is not only forgotten by those whom we
describe as liberals or modernists in their theology (that is always true
of them), but we ourselves are often guilty of precisely the same thing.
It is heard in that most people referring to the Holy Spirit and His
work as 'it' and 'its' influence and so on, as if the Holy Spirit were
nothing but an influence or a power.

1. One reason for this is that His work seems to be impersonal,
because it is a kind of mystical and secret work. He produced graces
and fruits; He gives us gifts and He gives us various powers. Because of
that, we tend to think of Him as if He were some influence.

2. Another reason is the very name and title tends to produce this
idea. What does Spirit mean? It means breath, wind or power, and because
of that, I think, we tend, almost inevitably and very naturally, unless
we safeguard ourselves, to think of Him as just an influence rather than
a person.

3. A third reason is that the very symbols that are used in speaking
of Him and in describing Him tend to encourage us in that direction. He
descended upon our Lord, as John baptized Him in the Jordan, in the
semblance of a dove (Matthew 3:16). The symbols that are used to describe
Him and His work are oil, water and fire. In particular, there is the
phrase in the prophecy of Joel, which was quoted by Peter in Jerusalem,
on the Day of Pentecost, about the Spirit being poured out (Acts 2:17).
That makes us think of liquid, something like water, something that can
be handled, certainly not a person.[20]

In Living Water, The tragic mistake of the modern church is its
declaration of independence from the Holy Spirit. We have declared that
we no longer need the Spirit to direct our activities.

But the Bible will have none of this. It clearly and firmly teaches that
the Holy Spirit is a Person, the same in essence as the Father and the
Son, yet separate in personality from them both.[21]

The enemy wants to confuse us, especially about the baptism of the Holy
Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, we would look like a brand new car
without gas.

Seven Things Before Paul Confirms About the Spiritual Gifts

Starting with (1 Corinthians 12):

1. Guidance
1 Corinthians 12:2
Led - carried away by idols

2. Focus
1 Corinthians 12:3
John 15:26; our focus is to be on Jesus

3. Variety

1 Corinthians 12:4

Three types of Gifts:

Romans 12 - dedicated to service

Ephesians 4 - offices (saint gifts)

1 Corinthians 12 - activities

God gives His people varieties of gifts just as players on a team have
varieties of positions.

Varieties (diaireseis) basically means "?apportionments,?"
"?allotments,?" or "?distributions,?" with the derived idea of varieties.
God distributes His gifts in many forms, in many varieties, to His
children. He has a multiplicity of gifts, which are given to every
believer. [22]

4. Unity
1 Corinthians 12:6
Same Spirit and same Lord

Unity of spirit and purpose can be maintained only through diversity of
ministry. But unity is not uniformity. A football team whose players all
wanted to play quarterback would have uniformity but not unity. It could
not function as a team if everyone played the same position. [23]

5. Individual
1 Corinthians 12:7,11
To each one in the Body of Christ

6. Giver
1 Corinthians 12:11,27
The Holy Spirit is the giver, "as He wills"

7. Purpose
1 Corinthians 12:13,27
For the profit of all

I. We Belong to Each Other (12:1-20)

The word "charity" means "love" in action (Ref. 1 Corinthians 13). It is
not simply an emotion; it is the heart reaching out to others. "Charity"
today makes us think of giving away old clothes or making gifts to
"charitable institutions." These activities can be Christian love in
action, but Paul is demanding much more. The word he uses for love is
agape, which is love that sacrifices for the good of others.


A. We share the same confession (vv. 1-3).

B. We serve the same God (vv. 4-6).

C. We seek to build the same body (vv. 7-13).

D. We share the same baptism (vv. 14-20).


II. We Need Each Other (12:21-25)

Paul teaches that every member of the body is essential to the life,
health, and growth of the church.


III. We Affect Each Other (12:26-31)

God has given every Christian at least one gift that he or she can and
should share with other believers and in so doing serve them. The gift in
view is evidently one of the so-called spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12-14;
Rom. 12; Eph. 4). "Manifold" means many faceted or variegated. God
bestows His grace on different people in different ways. The gifts (Gr.
charisma) are aspects of God's grace. No Christian can claim that he or
she has nothing to offer the church.166 [24]

It is important that we realize our relationship to one another in the
church. Yes, there are many denominations today, but all true Christians,
indwelt by the Spirit, are members of His body. There can be unity even
where there is not uniformity. Christ never prayed for uniformity in His
church, but for the same spiritual unity that exists between Him and His
Father (John 17:20-23). We should likewise pray for spiritual unity and
do all we can to guard it and extend it (Eph. 4:1ff).[25]

The Gifts of the Holy Spirit (referred to 1 Corinthians 12)

(1 Corinthians 12:1 NLT)

12 Now, dear brothers and sisters,?*? regarding your question about the
special abilities the Spirit gives us. I don't want you to misunderstand
this.[26]

Paul voices this same desire concerning Old Testament typology in (1
Corinthians 10), the Rapture in (1 Thessalonians 4), the tactics of Satan
in ()2 Corinthians 3, and the future of Israel in (Romans 11). The areas
about which Paul wanted believers to be knowledgeable are the very
ones about which believers throughout history have had the most
questions. Thus, his concern was inspired indeed.[27]


The overarching principle concerning the gifts of the Spirit is this: The
true gifts of the Holy Spirit, when manifested in a scriptural and
correct way, will always focus people's hearts on Jesus Christ. Jesus
said the Spirit would not testify of Himself, but of Christ. The
scriptural exercise of the gifts will always give you a fresh vision of
Jesus Christ and His glory, causing you to fall in love with Him, and to
be drawn to Him all over again. Your heart will almost explode with love
and appreciation for what Jesus is and what He is able to do.[28]

Paul lists nine gifts (charismata), in this chapter: wisdom, knowledge,
prophecy, faith, healings, miracles, spiritual discernment, speaking in
tongues, and interpretation of tongues.

Note: There are at least 21 in the NT: Some would count administration
and apostleship from this chapter, along with serving, teaching,
encouraging, contributing, leadership, showing mercy (Rom 12:6-8),
celibacy (1 Cor 7:7), evangelism, pastoring (Eph 4:11), and public
service (Acts 6:2-4). I do not believe that any of the "lists" are
intended to be complete, only representative.

Question. Are the Spiritual Gifts for today?

Thought #1 - In the apostles day they needed it to kick start the church,
and now we don't need the gifts of the Holy Spirit as we have the Word
of God.

Some authorities say that in 1 Corinthians 13 Paul was prophesying that
these things would end. But I cannot accept that. I think he is referring
to
something much beyond this, to the ultimate glory when we shall see face
to face, when love alone will be left, and even faith and hope will be
turned into sight.[29]

Excerpt from Living Waters:

Did the Gifts Cease?

There are those who say that the miraculous manifestations of God ceased
with the apostles. They believe God gave the early church this
supernatural power and these extraordinary manifestations to help get it
started in a world that was antagonistic toward Jesus Christ. Because
they did not have seminaries and great cathedrals, they needed a little
boost to get started. These people say that now that we have great
educational facilities and are well organized, we no longer need these
divine manifestations of the Spirit. We can intellectually challenge
unbelievers, and we can use our apologetics to convince the world of its
need for Jesus Christ.[30]

(1 Corinthians 13 NASB), ( 1 Corinthians 13:8)

The Excellence of Love

1 If I speak with the ?a?tongues of men and of ?b?angels, but do
not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a ?c?clanging
cymbal.[31]

8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of ?1??a?prophecy,
they will be done away; if there are ?b?tongues, they will cease; if
there is knowledge, it will be done away. [32]

Thought #2 - In a word, YES!

"Is God dead?" A miracle is a supernatural happening. If God is still
alive and still working, then there will be supernatural happenings, and,
thus, the days of miracles cannot be over.[33]


1) The Holy Spirit is immutable.

2) Where does it say they are to terminate?

3) If the gifts are not, what about teaching, et al?

4) Until the "close of the canon?" vs. the Upper Room confirmations.

Three Groupings of Supernatural Gifts

I. Revelatory - Word of Wisdom, Word of Knowledge,
Discerning of Spirits

II. Power - Faith, Healings, Miracles

III. Vocal - Prophecy, Tongues, Interpretation of
Tongues

1. The Word of Wisdom.

(1 Corinthians 12:6 NASB)

8 For to one is given the word of ?a?wisdom through the Spirit,
and to another the word of ?b?knowledge according to the same
Spirit; [34]

The word of wisdom - The direction for action that can only come from
God. We cannot always tap into it, (spontaneous gifting).

The word of wisdom is the supernatural power to speak with divine
insight, whether in solving difficult problems, defending the faith,
resolving conflicts, giving practical advice, or pleading one's case
before hostile authorities. Stephen so demonstrated the word of wisdom
that his adversaries "were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit
by which he spoke" (Acts 6:10).[35]

(Acts 10:19-20 NASB)

19 While Peter was reflecting on ?a?the vision, ?b?the Spirit
said
to him, "Behold, ?1?three men are looking for you.

20 "But get up, go downstairs and ?a?accompany them
?1?without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself." [36]

Wisdom (sophia): Divine wisdom, contrasted with human wisdom
(1:17,20,25). One of the "Seven Spirits" of Isa 11:1,2. Fulfilled
in Christ (Lk 2:52); given to Steven (Acts 6:10; cf. Acts 7!); and
available to us all (Jas 1:5).

In the New Testament, wisdom (sophia) is used most often to refer to the
ability to understand God's will and apply it obediently (see, e.g.,
?Matt. 11:19?; ?13:54?; ?Mark 6:2?; ?Luke 7:35?; ?Acts 6:10?; ?James
1:5?; ?3:13?, ?17?; ?2 Pet. 3:15?). Wisdom, then, refers basically to
applying truths discovered, to the ability to make skillful and practical
application of the truth to life situations. Communicating wisdom is the
function of the expositor, who draws not only from his own study of
Scripture but from the many insights and interpretations of commentators
and other Bible scholars. It is also the ability a counselor must have in
order to apply God's truth to the questions and problems brought to him.
It is a feature in the gift of the pastor, who must know, understand, and
be able to apply God's Word in order to lead his people as he should.[37]

2. The Word of Knowledge.

The word of knowledge - A piece of information that could only come
from God.

?The gift of knowledge is the capability of grasping the meaning of God's
revelation, which is mystery to the natural mind. That gift is
foundational for all Christian teaching and preaching, as well as for the
proper exercise of counseling, leadership, wisdom and all other
ministries and gifts. If a person does not have that ability himself, he
must rely heavily on those who do in order to exercise his own gifts
rightly. The teacher or preacher is especially dependent on knowledge,
because he is commissioned to teach and interpret God's truths to
others.[38]

Knowledge (gnosis): It depends not on intellect, but on love; an
intimate personal relationship. Contrast Peter's rhetorical performance
prior to Pentecost with his two sermons (Acts 2 & 3) after!

(John 4:7-10, 19 NASB)

The Woman of Samaria

7 There ?came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus ??said
to her, "Give Me a drink."

8 For His ?a?disciples had gone away into ?b?the city to buy
food.

9 Therefore the ?a?Samaritan woman ?said to Him, "How is it that
You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan
woman?" (For ?b?Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God,
and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have
asked Him, and He would have given you ?a?living water." [39]

...

19 The woman ?said to Him, "?1?Sir, I perceive that You are
?a?a prophet. [40]


The Scripture shows a woman, whom is based on a misunderstanding of
Jesus', and a spiritual intent serves to transport the discussion to
deeper levels of thought.[41]

By divine appointment, God had planned for this sinful woman to meet
Him and find in Him the water of life. In the interview recorded, we see
the different stages by which this woman came to believe in Christ.[42]

There is nothing profounder in the whole of the New Testament than this
interview, it is full of the great meaning of the Gospel of God; we do
not sufficiently grasp its profundity. In it we see Almighty God
Incarnate stooping down to lift up a sinful woman, as a symbol of the way
His salvation is at work among men.[43]


Scripture shows a series of improving titles for Jesus ("Sir," vv. 11,
14; "Prophet," v. 19; "Christ," vv. 25, 29; "Savior of the world," v.
42); the woman's testimony converts many in the village (v. 39); and
Jesus remains with them for two days before going north into Galilee
(v. 43).[44]

Living water. In the Old Testament, living or running water was
employed figuratively as a reference to divine activity (Jer. 2:13; Zech.
14:8). See also v. 14 and 7:37-39.[45]

The term "living water" (4:10) was a common reference to spring water
in contrast to that which was found in a cistern (Jeremiah 2:13). Jesus
took this common term and filled it with new meaning, spiritual cleansing
and refreshment through Christ[46]

(Jeremiah 2:13 NASB)

13 "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken
Me, The ?a?fountain of living waters, To hew for themselves ?b?cisterns,
Broken cisterns That can hold no water.[47]

Jeremiah compared these with underground water storage devices for
rainwater, which were broken and let water seep out, thus proving
useless.[48]

It is clearly stated that the expression "living water" refers to the
Holy Spirit.[49]

Jesus speaks of living water-water of life-but she takes this to mean
literal water. How typical of the sinner, confusing the physical and the
spiritual![50]

Jesus points out to her that the things of the world do not satisfy, and
men without Christ will always "thirst again." Jesus promises that the
water of life will spring up within the heart and keep us constantly
refreshed and satisfied: and the woman, still confused, asked for that
water.[51]

The human writers of Scripture had the gift of knowledge in a unique
way. God gave them truths directly, which they recorded as part of His
written Word. Any word of divine knowledge or wisdom must be based
on the Word of God, "?once for all delivered?" (?Jude 3?).[52]

(Jude 3 NASB)

3 ?a?Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about
our ?b?common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you
appealing that you ?c?contend earnestly for ?d?the faith which was
once for all ?e?handed down to ?f?the ?1?saints. [53]

4. Discerning of Spirits

Discerning - When you get a check in your heart about a person.



Scripture It tells us there are two worlds coexisting, each passing
through the other. For the most part, we are not conscious of that other
world - but it is very conscious of us. The Bible calls it the world of
spirits. This spiritual world is very real, and has a tremendous
influence on all of our lives, either for good or for evil.[54]

· Kingdom of Light - our side

· Kingdom of Darkness - wants to destroy

Against Our Physical Life

Kingdom of Light.

(Hebrews 1:14 NASB)

14 Are they not all ?a?ministering spirits, sent out to render
service for the sake of those who will ?b?inherit ?c?salvation? [55]


The mission of the angels is not to rule but to serve. They are spirit
beings whom God has created to minister for those who will inherit
salvation.[56]

Whose servants? Ours, for we are the heirs of salvation.

· In (Psalm 91:11), we read of their protective work.

· In (Luke 15), we see them rejoicing over saved sinners.

· In (Luke 16), we see them carrying people to their eternal state.

· In (Acts 5 and 12), we see them delivering Peter and other
apostles from prison.

Angels do, indeed, have a ministry, but the ministry is to us.[57]

Kingdom of Darkness.

(Ephesians 6:10-20)

Armor of God

· Military Level - Warning

The body is at war with a spiritual enemy. We do not just walk, but we
also war.

"Sooner or later every believer discovers that the Christian life is a
battleground, not a playground, and that he faces an enemy who is much
stronger than he is, apart from the Lord."153 [58]

The believer must put on the whole armor of God that he may be able to
stand against the schemes of the devil. It is necessary to be completely
armed; one or two pieces will not do. The devil has various stratagems,
discouragement, frustration, confusion, moral failure, and doctrinal
error. He knows our weakest point and aims for it. If he cannot disable
us by one method, he will try for another. [59]

(2 Corinthians 11:14 NASB)

14 No wonder, for even ?a?Satan disguises himself as an ?b?angel
of light. [60]

We shouldn't be surprised when false teachers seem to live so
righteously, when their standards seem to be so moral, when they stress
the importance of family and separation from the defilement of the world.
We shouldn't be surprised that their TV commercials sound so right and
look so warm and fuzzy, nor that their temple in Salt Lake City glows
with light, for Paul says Satan himself transforms into an angel of
light.

You see, Satan will go either way with people. If people want to be dark
and devilish and heavy, he'll meet them there. But if people want to be
exemplary and upstanding, he'll meet them there. As an angel of light,
he'll say, "You don't need to admit you're a sinner and need a Savior.
Just live morally."[61]

Perhaps by way of illustration we might say he poses as a minister of the
gospel, wearing religious clothing, and standing in the pulpit of a
fashionable church. He uses religious words such as God, Jesus, and the
Bible. But he deludes his hearers, teaching that salvation is by good
works or by human merit. He does not preach redemption through the
blood of Christ. [62]

(1 John 4:1 NASB)

Testing the Spirits

1 ?a?Beloved, do not believe every ?b?spirit, but test the
spirits to
see whether they are from God, because ?c?many false prophets
have gone out into the world. [63]

John is reminded that there are other spirits abroad in the world today,
and that the children of God need to be warned against them. Thus he
cautions the believer not to trust every spirit.[64]

The Danger of Immaturity (Warning)

(Hebrews 5:14 NASB)

14 But solid food is for ?a?the mature, who because of practice
have their senses ?b?trained to ?c?discern good and evil. [65]

Spiritual babies lack information, which they do, but that they lack
experience. A person becomes a mature Christian not only by gaining
information, though that is foundational, but by using that information
to make decisions that are in harmony with God's will. [66]

"One of the first symptoms of spiritual regression, or backsliding, is a
dullness toward the Bible. Sunday School class is dull, the preaching is
dull, anything spiritual is dull. The problem is usually not with the
Sunday School teacher or the pastor, but with the believer himself."163
[67]

Examples:

(Acts 8:10-20) Excerpt:

18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the
laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,

19 saying, "Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone
on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." [68]


Simon the sorcerer was willing to pay for the gift of the Holy Spirit.
His heart was not right.

(Acts 16:16 NASB)

16 It happened that as we were going to ?a?the place of prayer,
a slave-girl having ?b?a spirit of divination met us, who was
bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling. [69]


The spirit of divination was in the slave girl. False prophets often
speak the truth.

Be like Bereans.

(Acts 17:11 NASB)

11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in
?a?Thessalonica, ?1?for they received the word with ?2?great
eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these
things were so. [70]

The Bereans listened to Paul as he taught in the synagogue. Every day,
they searched the Scriptures, saying, "Let's check out the teaching
Paul's giving. Let's consider what he's saying as it relates to the
Scriptures." And because the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily,
they have been noted throughout the ages as being noble.[71]

4. Faith.

Faith - Three types of faith:

· Saving Faith - does not grow - to the believer

· Promising Faith - does grow - trust in the promises of God

o Word of God (Our responsibility to read and study)

o Experiencing the faith of God (Jude 20)

· Healing Faith - it just happens

Faith (v.9): Not the "saving faith," but an unshakable trust that God
will perform miracles. Peter and John in opposing the Sanhedrin,
preaching the gospel, healing the cripple (Acts 3:1-4:2). Paul's call to
Rome (Acts 23:11), his behavior during the storm on the Mediterranean Sea
(Acts 27:23-26, 34), etc. Hebrews 11, et al. Even Elijah was "a man like
us." (Jas 5:17-18).

(Jude 20-21 NASB)

20 But you, ?a?beloved, ?b?building yourselves up on your most
holy ?a?faith, ?c?praying in the Holy Spirit,

21 keep yourselves in the love of God, ?a?waiting anxiously for
the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. [72]

Jude gives four steps:

1. The first is building yourselves up on your most holy faith, that
is, the Christian faith. We build up ourselves on it by studying and
obeying the Bible. Constant familiarity with the word guides us
positively in the way of righteousness, and warns us against the perils
along the way. "Men may decry doctrine,"

H. Pickering says, "but it is creed that produces character and not
character that produces creed." [73]

2. The second step is praying in the Holy Spirit. This means to pray
as guided by the Spirit, in accordance with the will of God as revealed
in the Bible or as privately revealed by the Spirit in a subjective way
to the believer. It is in contrast to prayers which are recited
mechanically or spun off without any real spiritual involvement. [74]

3. Then again believers are to keep themselves in the love of God.
Here the love of God can be compared to the sunshine. The sun is always
shining. But when something comes between us and the sun, we are no
longer in the sunshine. That's the way it is with the love of God. It is
always beaming down upon us. But if sin comes between us and the Lord,
then we are no longer enjoying His love in practice. [75]

And if sin should come between, then we should confess and forsake
that sin immediately. The secret is to let nothing come between us and
God.[76]

(1 John 1:9 NASB)

9 ?a?If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to
forgive us our sins and ?b?to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.[77]

4. Finally, we should be eagerly looking for the mercy of our Lord
Jesus Christ unto eternal life. The mercy of our Lord here refers to His
imminent return to take His people home to heaven. In days of darkness
and apostasy, we are to keep the light of the blessed hope burning in our
hearts. It will prove a comforting and purifying hope

. (1 Thess. 4:18; 1 Jn. 3:3). [78]

5. Healing

Healing - Faith that is linked to a healing and just happens (1
Corinthians 12). It is not a reserve, it just drops in.

Healing (James 5:14-15): Not a permanent gift, but a sovereign
manifestation of the Spirit. Even Paul's own "thorn in the flesh" went
unhealed (2 Cor 12:9). Furthermore, he indirectly admits that he lacked
the ability to heal either Epaphroditus (Phil 2:27), Timothy (1 Tim
5:23), or Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20). We should not cease asking (Heb 4:16;
Jas 5:16).

· Trusting in the Providence of God

· Spontaneous

(Mark 2:5 NASB)

5 And Jesus seeing their faith ?said to the paralytic, "?1?Son,
?a?your sins are forgiven." [79]

Jesus, impressed by their faith,. . . said to the paralytic, "Son, your
sins are forgiven."

(James 5:14-15 NASB)

14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for ?a?the elders
of the church and they are to pray over him, ?1??b?anointing him
with oil in the name of the Lord;

15 and the ?a?prayer ?1?offered in faith will ?2??b?restore the
one who is sick, and the Lord will ?c?raise him up, and if he has
committed sins, ?3?they will be forgiven him. [80]

If these were the only verses in the Bible on healing, we would assume
that a Christian could be assured of healing from every illness that
comes in life, if he met the conditions listed. However, we have already
seen from other Scriptures that it is not always God's will to heal.
Therefore we are forced to the conclusion that James is not talking about
every kind of illness, but only about a certain form of sickness, that
is, a sickness which is the result of certain specific circumstances. The
key to understanding the passage is found in the words "And if he has
committed sins, he will be forgiven." Healing in this section is
connected with the forgiveness of sins.[81]

Additional examples:

(Acts 28:8 NASB)

8 And it happened that the father of Publius was lying in bed
afflicted with recurrent fever and dysentery; and Paul went in to
see him and after he had ?a?prayed, he ?b?laid his hands on him and
healed him. [82]

In this verse, the word: "healed" is

Strong's # 2390 ???µa? [iaomai /ee·ah·om·ahee/] translates as "heal" 1
to cure, heal. 2 to make whole.[83] An instant physical healing.

While in verse:

(Acts 28:9 NASB)

9 After this had happened, the rest of the people on the island
who had diseases were coming to him and getting cured. [84]

Is Strong's # 2323 ?e?ape?? [therapeuo /ther·ap·yoo·o/] 1 to serve, do
service. 2 to heal, cure, restore to health.[85] A person who cares for
the sick. A gradual healing.

Anything Can Happen!

6. Miracles

Miracles - A spontaneous gift; something humanly impossible,
but divinely possible (simple).

Miracles (v.10): More miracles took place during Jesus' ministry than at
any other time in Biblical history. The supreme one being the
resurrection which will be the subject of Chapter 15. Miracles were the
distinctive mark of an apostle (2 Cor 12:12). They were used to confirm
the message of the gospel (Acts 6:8; 8:7; 13:6- 12; Heb 2:4).

Examples:

· Changed Lives

· The atomic structure of the atom

(Colossians 1:16-17 NASB)

16 For ?1??a?by Him all things were created, ?a?both in the
heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether ?b?thrones or
dominions or rulers or authorities-?c?all things have been created
through Him and for Him.

17 He ?1??a?is before all things, and in Him all things ?2?hold
together.[86]

An interesting law of science known as Coulomb's Law of Electricity says
that like charges repel. You can prove Coulomb's Law by pushing the
positive ends of two magnets toward each other and feeling them repel
each other. Opposite charges attract; like charges repel. But here's a
great mystery: In the nucleus of the atom, protons are packed together
that are all positive-charged particles. [87]

What keeps these positive-charged protons from repelling like the
magnets? What holds them together? Science doesn't know. You can study
Quantum Physics and learn lots of hypotheses and theories, yet to this
day, it's a mystery to scientists-but not to believers, for Scripture
tells us the real answer. It is Jesus Christ who holds all things
together. And the day is coming when suddenly He will let go.[88]

Why Aren't We Not Seeing More Miracles in the Church?

In a word: Unbelief.

(Matthew 13:57-58 NASB)

57 And they took ?a?offense at Him. But Jesus said to them,
"?b?A prophet is not without honor except in his ?1?hometown and
in his own household."

58 And He did not do many ?1?miracles there because of their
unbelief. [89]

The reason for this was, "their unbelief" (the only occurrence of the
word in Matthew). This unbelief interprets the sense in which they were
scandalized by Jesus (v 57a). Jesus will not perform miracles in order to
counteract unbelief.[90]

The primary mistake of the people of Nazareth was their automatic
limitation of Jesus to the familiar framework in which they had
previously known him. This made them unable to evaluate Jesus in terms of
his message and deeds. It made impossible a fair consideration of who
Jesus was and what he had come to offer. Familiarity with Jesus became a
liability, since he was thereby forced into a preconceived framework. In
this respect outsiders have a distinct advantage.[91]

"Jesus led a perfect life and still had family members and friends who
struggled to believe. Sometimes those most difficult to reach are those
who know us best."578 [92]

The progression of events in these case usually follow:

Fear comes in à Doubt à Unbelief

(Mark 6:5-6 NASB)

5 And He could do no ?1?miracle there except that He ?a?laid His
hands on a few sick people and healed them.

6 And He wondered at their unbelief. a?And He was going around
the villages teaching. [93]

Jesus' inability to do any "mighty work" (d??aµ??) points to the nature
of his ministry. Their unbelieving response (6:6a) precluded his working
among them, since his work was a "redemptive event". Jesus did not come
as a magician or a miracle worker to display and dazzle his audience. His
"words" and his "work" were from God. Those who rejected this inherent
claim in his ministry could not experience God's redemptive work on their
behalf. [94]

The unbelief of the people amazed Him. J. G. Miller warns:

Such unbelief as this has immense consequences for evil. It closes the
channels of grace and mercy, so that only a trickle gets through to human
lives in need.? 9 [95]

(Hebrews 11:6 NASB)

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who
?a?comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder
of those who seek Him. [96]

For examples, look at the accounts of Noah and Abraham.


7. Prophecy - speaking forth the Word of God thru the
Holy Spirit.

· Like channeling the Spirit of God to others. encourages,
edifies,comforts, also edifies the church.

1- edification - building up; to promote growth.

Strong's # 3619 ????d?µ? [oikodome /oy·kod·om·ay/] 1 (the act of)
building, building up. 2 metaph. edifying, edification. 2a the act of one
who promotes another's growth in Christian wisdom, piety, happiness,
holiness. 3 a building (i.e. the thing built, edifice).[97]

2- exhortation - to challenge a person to grow; stretching; it may
hurt a little; to be a doer of the Word.

Strong's # 3874 pa?????s?? [paraklesis /par·ak·lay·sis/] 1 a calling
near, summons, (esp. for help). 2 importation, supplication, entreaty. 3
exhortation, admonition, encouragement.[98]

3- Comfort - is spoken to stimulate something to be done in an
ordinary maner.

Strong's # 3889 pa?aµ???a [paramuthia /par·am·oo·thee·ah/] 1 any
address, whether made for the purpose of persuading, or of arousing and
stimulating, or of calming and consoling. 1a consolation, comfort.[99]


· Forth telling, (not foretelling)

Prophecy: "Forthtelling," a key element at Corinth (as seen in 1
Corinthians Chapter 11). Sometimes predictions (Agabus, Acts 11:28;21:11)
or to interpret God's Will to the church (Eph 4:11). Prophetic
utterances are always to be judged by Scripture (Acts 17:11). God's Word
is always the standard.

Example: With Moses and Elijah 25 percent was foretelling about future
events, and the rest was forth telling.

Tests:

· Does it line up with the Word of God?

· Does it glorify Jesus?

(Revelation 19:10 NASB)

... For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." [100]

8. Tongues

Tongues - An affront to the intellect, and a blessing to the soul.
- Chuck Smith

Tongues: Speaking in unknown tongues often accompanied the epi
relationship (Acts 2, 10,19).

· Tongues of men - the ability to speak fluently in a foreign
language, thru the agency of the Holy Spirit.


· Tongues of angels - not understood by men; speaking by yourself to
the Lord.

The Holy Spirit is a gentleman. He does not force Himself upon you, and
He is not the author of confusion.

Tongues of men.

(Acts 19:6 NASB)

6 And when Paul had ?a?laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit
came on them, and they began ?b?speaking with tongues and
?c?prophesying. [101]

Strong's # 1100 ???ssa [glossa /gloce·sah/] 1a the language or dialect
used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations. 1 to
explain in words, expound. 2 to interpret. 2a to translate what has been
spoken or written in a foreign tongue into the vernacular.[102]

9. Interpretation of Tongues

Strong's # 2058 from 2059 ??µ??e?? [hermeneuo /her·mayn·yoo·o/]
From a presumed derivative of 2060 (as the God of language); 1 to
explain in words, expound. 2 to interpret. 2a to translate what has been
spoken or written in a foreign tongue into the vernacular.[103]

(1 Corinthians 12:10 NASB)

10 and to another the ?1?effecting of ?2??a?miracles, and to
another ?b?prophecy, and to another the ?3??c?distinguishing of
spirits, to another various ?d?kinds of tongues, and to another the
?e?interpretation of tongues. [104]

The interpretation of tongues is the miraculous power to understand a
language which the person has never known before and to convey the
message in the local language.

It is perhaps significant that this list of gifts begins with those that
are connected primarily with the intellect and closes with those dealing
primarily with the emotions.[105]

(1 Corinthians 4:26-28 NASB)

26 ?a?What is the outcome then, ?b?brethren? When you assemble,
?c?each one has a ?d?psalm, has a ?e?teaching, has a ?e?revelation,
has a ?f?tongue, has an ?g?interpretation. Let ?h?all things be done
for edification.

27 If anyone speaks in a ?a?tongue, it should be by two or at
the most three, and each in turn, and one must ?b?interpret;

28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the
church; and let him speak to himself and to God. [106]

Because of the abuses that had entered the church in connection with the
gift of tongues, it was necessary for the Spirit of God to set forth
certain regulations to control the use of this gift.[107]

Corinthian believers seemed to do everything. Whether they had a
psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation, they all
wanted to participate at the same time. They were not interested in
serving, or learning, or edifying, but only in self-expression and
self-glory. Everyone vied for attention and preeminence.[108]

(Daniel 5:24-28 NASB)

24 "Then the ?1??a?hand was sent from Him and this inscription
was written out.

25 "Now this is the inscription that was written out: '?1?MENE,
?1?MENE, ?2?TEKEL, ?3?UPHARSIN.'

26 "This is the interpretation of the ?1?message: 'MENE'-God
has numbered your kingdom and ?a?put an end to it.

27 " 'TEKEL'-you have been ?a?weighed on the scales and
found deficient.

28 " 'PERES'-your kingdom has been divided and given over to
the ?a?Medes and ?1?Persians." [109]

Notice that the interpretation is longer than the words them themselves.

That's the difference between translation and interpretation.

(1 Corinthians 14:1-4 NASB)

Prophecy a Superior Gift

1 ?a?Pursue love, yet ?b?desire earnestly ?c?spiritual gifts,
but
especially that you may ?d?prophesy.

2 For one who ?a?speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but
to God; for no one ?1?understands, but ?2?in his spirit he speaks
?b?mysteries.

3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for ?a?edification and
?b?exhortation and consolation.

4 One who ?a?speaks in a tongue ?b?edifies himself; but one who
?c?prophesies ?b?edifies the church. [110]

The Inferiority of Tongues (14:1-25).

Some want us to believe that the gift of tongues is a mark of superior
spirituality, and that Christians cannot truly be spiritual as long as
they neglect this gift. Paul teaches exactly the opposite! He gives three
reasons why tongues are an inferior gift.[111]

A. Tongues do not edify (build up) the church (vv. 1-19).

We must keep in mind that spiritual gifts have as their purpose the
building up of the church of Jesus Christ (12:7) and not the personal
enjoyment of the believer. Gifts are for employment, not enjoyment. In
this section, Paul contrasts tongues and prophecy. Prophecy, you will
recall, was the giving forth of the truth of God under the immediate
leading of the Holy Spirit. It is not identical to preaching, because the
preacher interprets the written Word as instructed by the Spirit; he does
not speak the very Word of God.

Note the contrasts:

Prophecy
Tongues

1. Speaks to men for their good, v. 3
1. Speaks to God for the speaker's own good, v. 2

2. Can be understood, vv. 2, 5
2. Not understood unless there is an interpreter

3. Edifies the church, vv. 3-4
3. Edifies the speaker, v. 4

4. The greater gift, vv.
4. The lesser gift, v. 5 (note 12:10)

Paul makes it clear that tongues, apart from utterances that are
interpreted, are of no value to the church. For that matter, they bring
no personal blessing to the speaker himself unless he understands what is
being said (vv. 14-15). Those who say that Christians should practice
this gift in private ignore what Paul says here. In the first place, how
can we edify the church if we use our spiritual gifts in private and not
to serve others? And, second, if we do not understand what is being said,
how can we profit from it ourselves? It is possible for the flesh and the
devil to imitate spiritual gifts and lead a believer into a religion of
shallow emotionalism instead of one of solid understanding and faith.
This is not to deny the place of sincere emotions in the Christian life,
for the fruits of the Spirit certainly involve the emotions (Gal.
5:22-23); these emotions, however, must be instructed by the mind and
controlled by the will, or they will be destructive.

B. Tongues do not edify the believer (vv. 20-21).

Some suggest that the gift of tongues is a mark of spiritual maturity and
of a deeper Christian life; but Paul says just the opposite. The
Christians at Corinth were "babes in Christ" and "carnal" (3:1-4). They
boasted of their "spirituality" (8:1-2; 10:12), yet had to be warned by
Paul and taught in the most elementary manner. In 13:8-13, Paul explains
that their passion for emotional spiritual gifts was a mark of infancy
and not maturity. Mature believers have the Spirit and the Word and seek
no emotional "crutches" to prop them up. Dr. M. R. DeHaan has an
interesting view of 14:22 that backs up this teaching. He says that "them
that believe" (v. 22) refers to spiritual Christians who live by faith in
God's Word, while "them that believe not" refers to immature believers
without strong faith. God has to give emotional signs to immature
Christians to bolster their faith, but the mature believer builds his
life on the Word.

C. Tongues do not win the lost (vv. 22-25).

In Acts 2, God gave the apostles the gift of tongues that they might
share the Word with the Jews at Pentecost. It was a sign to the Jews that
God was at work, fulfilling Isa. 28:11-12. We find incidents involving
tongues four times in Acts, and each time they give evidence to Jews
present that God is working: (1) Acts 2; tongues are evidence to the
unbelieving Jews at Pentecost; (2) Acts 8; evidence to the believing Jews
that the Spirit had come upon the Samaritans; (3) Acts 10; evidence that
the Spirit had come upon the Gentiles; (4) Acts 19; evidence that the
twelve Ephesian men had received the Spirit. But tongues would never
reach the unbeliever for the Lord, especially the confusion of tongues
that existed at Corinth. It was another Babel! Far better that the
unbelieving visitor should hear a message from the Word, something he can
understand, and then make his decision for Christ, than hear a confusion
of messages he cannot grasp.[112]

The Spirit of God never works apart from or contrary to the Word of
God, and nowhere is this principle needed more than in the area of
spiritual gifts. We cannot be guided by somebody's subjective emotional
experience, but we can be guided by the unchanging objective Word of
God.

Note the basic principles for spiritual worship that Paul gives to the
church:

1.) The teaching and preaching of the Word takes precedence over
everything else.

2.) The church must be built up.

3.) There must be nothing that would hurt the testimony before
unbelievers.

4.) There must always be self-control.

5.) Everything must be done "decently and in order," following the
Word of God.

6.) Women are not to exercise authority over men.

7.) There must be understanding before there can be blessing.

It is evident from Scripture that there was an informality about the
meetings of the early church. We must avoid formality on one hand and
fanaticism on the other. It is a fine line to toe. A planned service is
not an unspiritual service, for the same Spirit can lead in the planning
beforehand just as He can lead in the service itself. But even in a
planned service, we must make room for the Spirit to lead, lest we grieve
Him. [113]

The chief end of man is to glorify Christ and enjoy Him forever.


. ==//==

Appendix

References to the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit Relating to the Father.

There are the many names that relate Him to the Father; lets enumerate
some of them:

The Spirit of God (Gen. 1:2);
the Spirit of the Lord (Luke 4:18);
the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11). Then another is,
the Spirit of the Lord God, which is in Isaiah 61:1.
Our Lord speaks, in Matthew 10:20, of the Spirit of your Father,
while Paul refers to the Spirit of the living God (2 Cor. 3:3).
My Spirit, says God, in Genesis 6:3,
and the psalmist asks, 'Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?' (Ps. 139:7).
He is referred to as his Spirit-God's Spirit-in Numbers 11:29; and
Paul, in Romans 8:11, uses the phrase the Spirit of him [God the Father]
that raised up Jesus from the dead.

All these are descriptive titles referring to the Holy Spirit in terms of
His relationship to the Father.[114]

The Holy Spirit Relating to the Son.

The titles that relate the Holy Spirit to the Son.

First, 'If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his' (Rom.
8:9), which is a most important phrase. The word 'Spirit' here refers to
the Holy Spirit.?1? In Philippians 1:19, Paul speaks about the Spirit of
Jesus Christ, and in Galatians 4:6 he says, 'God hath sent forth the
Spirit of his Son'. Finally He is referred to as the Spirit of the Lord
(Acts 5:9).[115]

The Holy Spirit as Direct or Personal Title.

Finally, the third group comprises the direct or personal titles, and
first and foremost here, of course, is the name Holy Spirit[116]

The Spirit of holiness. Romans 1:4 reads, 'Declared to be the Son of God
with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from
the dead.' A further title is the Holy One: 'But ye have an unction from
the Holy One' (1 John 2:20). In Hebrews 9:14 He is referred to as the
eternal Spirit and Paul says in Romans 8:2, 'For the law of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.' In
John 14:17 He is called the Spirit of truth, and in chapters 14, 15 and
16 of John's Gospel, He is referred to as the Comforter.[117]


These are the main names, or descriptive titles, that apply to the Holy
Spirit.

. ==//==

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (502).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

a Is 44:3; 55:1; 58:11

1 Lit out of his belly

b John 4:10

[2]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 7:38).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[3]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Jn 7:38). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

[4] Smith, Chuck, Living Water, Word for Today (copyright © 1996),
ISBN: 0936728779

About the Author: Chuck Smith is the senior pastor of Calvary Chapel of
Costa Mesa one of the largest and most dynamic churches in the United
States. His Bible studies are heard on The Word for Today radio
program, which is broadcast daily on hundreds of stations throughout the
U.S., and by internet around the world. He is the author of many books
on the deeper walk, and known for his simple teaching style whereby he
makes the word of God understandable to all.

[5] Wiersbe, W. W. (1997, c1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on
the New Testament (457). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books

[6] Wiersbe, W. W. (1997, c1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on
the New Testament (456). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

[7]Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (4). Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossways Books.

[8]Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (6). Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossways Books.

1 Gr Paracletos, one called alongside to help; or Comforter, Advocate,
Intercessor

a John 7:39; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; Rom 8:26; 1 John 2:1

a John 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 4:6; 5:7

b 1 Cor 2:14

[9]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 14:16-17).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a John 13:33; Gal 4:19; 1 John 2:12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21

b 1 John 1:4

c Rom 8:34; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 7:25; 9:24

1 Gr Paracletos, one called alongside to help; or Intercessor

d John 14:16

a Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 John 4:10

1 Or satisfaction

b John 4:42; 11:51f; 1 John 4:14

[10]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Jn 2:1-2).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[11]Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (8). Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossways Books.

[12] Missler, Chuck Dr., The Gospel of John, (Koinonia House, Inc. ©
1994), ISBN 1-880532-12-3, http://khouse.org/

[13]Wiersbe, W. W. (1997, c1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on
the New Testament (Page 250). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

a 3 John 11

b Jer 29:8; 1 Cor 12:10; 1 Thess 5:20f; 2 Thess 2:2

c Jer 14:14; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 2:18

[14]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Jn 4:1).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[15]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (1 Jn 4:1). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

a 1 Cor 6:3

b John 2:21; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16

1 Or sanctuary

2 Or God? And you...own

c Rom 14:7f

[16]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 6:19).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a Rom 12:6f

b 1 Cor 4:1

[17]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Pe 4:10).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[18]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (1 Pe 4:10). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

[19]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (1 Pe 4:10). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

[20]Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (8). Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossways Books.

[21] Smith, Chuck, Living Water, Word for Today (copyright © 1996),
ISBN: 0936728779, page 15.

[22]MacArthur, J. (1996, c1984). 1 Corinthians. Includes indexes.
(290). Chicago: Moody Press.

[23]MacArthur, J. (1996, c1984). 1 Corinthians. Includes indexes.
(290). Chicago: Moody Press.

166 166. For defense of the view that spiritual gifts are ministries
rather
than abilities, see Kenneth Berding, "Confusing Word and Concept in
'Spiritual Gifts': Have We Forgotten James Barr's Exhortations?"
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 200):37-51.

[24]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes
on the Bible (1 Pe 4:10). Galaxie Software.

[25]Wiersbe, W. W. (1997, c1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on
the New Testament (456). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

* Greek brothers.

[26]Tyndale House Publishers. (2004). Holy Bible : New Living
Translation. "Text edition"--Spine. (2nd ed.) (1 Co 12:1). Wheaton, Ill.:
Tyndale House Publishers.

[27]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary
(1068). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

[28] Smith, Chuck, Living Water, Word for Today (copyright © 1996),
ISBN: 0936728779, page 90.

[29]Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (270). Wheaton,
Ill.: Crossways Books.

[30] Smith, Chuck, Living Water, Word for Today (copyright © 1996),
ISBN: 0936728779, page 132.

a 1 Cor 12:10

b 2 Cor 12:4; Rev 14:2

c Ps 150:5

[31]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 13:1).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

1 Lit prophecies

a 1 Cor 13:2

b 1 Cor 13:1

[32]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 13:8).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[33] Smith, Chuck, Living Water, Word for Today (copyright © 1996),
ISBN: 0936728779, page 142

a 1 Cor 2:6; 2 Cor 1:12

b Rom 15:14; 1 Cor 2:11, 16; 2 Cor 2:14; 4:6; 8:7; 11:6

[34]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 12:8).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[35]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (1 Co 12:8). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

a Acts 10:3

b Acts 8:29

1 One early ms reads two

a Acts 15:7-9

1 Lit doubting nothing

[36]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 10:19-20).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[37]MacArthur, J. (1996, c1984). 1 Corinthians. Includes indexes.
(298). Chicago: Moody Press.

[38]MacArthur, J. (1996, c1984). 1 Corinthians. Includes indexes.
(298). Chicago: Moody Press.

a John 2:2

b John 4:5, 39

a Luke 9:52

b Ezra 4:3-6, 11ff; Matt 10:5; John 8:48; Acts 10:28

a Jer 2:13; John 4:14; 7:37f; Rev 7:17; 21:6; 22:1, 17

[39]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 4:7-10).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

1 Or Lord

a Matt 21:11; Luke 7:16, 39; 24:19; John 6:14; 7:40; 9:17

[40]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 4:19).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[41]Elwell, W. A. (1996, c1989). Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on
the Bible. Baker reference library (Jn 4:1). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House.

[42]Wiersbe, W. W. (1997, c1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on
the New Testament (Page 220). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

[43]Chambers, O. (1996, c1946). He shall glorify me : Talks on the
Holy Spirit and other themes. Hants UK: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.

[44]Elwell, W. A. (1996, c1989). Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on
the Bible. Baker reference library (Jn 4:1). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House.

[45]Whitlock, L. G., Sproul, R. C., Waltke, B. K., & Silva, M. (1995).
Reformation study Bible, the : Bringing the light of the Reformation to
Scripture : New King James Version. Includes index. (Jn 4:10).
Nashville: T. Nelson.

[46]Hughes, R. B., Laney, J. C., & Hughes, R. B. (2001). Tyndale
concise Bible commentary. Rev. ed. of: New Bible companion. 1990.;
Includes index. The Tyndale reference library (Page 470). Wheaton, Ill.:
Tyndale House Publishers.

?a? Ps 36:9; Jer 17:13; John 4:14

?b? Jer 14:3

[47]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Je 2:12).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[48]MacArthur, J. J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible
(electronic ed.) (Je 2:13). Nashville: Word Pub.

[49]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Jn 7:39). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

[50]Wiersbe, W. W. (1997, c1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on
the New Testament (Page 220). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

[51]Wiersbe, W. W. (1997, c1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on
the New Testament (Page 221). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

[52]MacArthur, J. (1996, c1984). 1 Corinthians. Includes indexes.
(299). Chicago: Moody Press.

a Heb 6:9; Jude 1, 17, 20

b Titus 1:4

c 1 Tim 6:12

d Acts 6:7; Jude 20

e 2 Pet 2:21

f Acts 9:13

1 Or holy ones

[53]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jud 3).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[54] Smith, Chuck, Living Water, Word for Today (copyright © 1996),
ISBN: 0936728779, page 164.

a Ps 103:20f; Dan 7:10

b Matt 25:34; Mark 10:17; Titus 3:7; Heb 6:12

c Rom 11:14; 1 Cor 1:21; Heb 2:3; 5:9; 9:28

[55]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Heb 1:14).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[56]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Heb 1:14). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

[57]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary
(1438). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

153 153. Wiersbe, 2:56.

[58]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes
on the Bible (Eph 6:9). Galaxie Software.

[59]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Eph 6:11). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

a Matt 4:10; Eph 6:12; Col 1:13

b Col 1:12

[60]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (2 Co 11:14).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[61]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary
(1148). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

[62]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (2 Co 11:14). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson.

a 3 John 11

b Jer 29:8; 1 Cor 12:10; 1 Thess 5:20f; 2 Thess 2:2

c Jer 14:14; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 2:18

[63]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Jn 4:1).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[64]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (1 Jn 4:1). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

a 1 Cor 2:6; Eph 4:13; Heb 6:1

b 1 Tim 4:7

c Rom 14:1ff

[65]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Heb 5:14).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[66]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes
on the Bible (Heb 5:14). Galaxie Software.

163 163. Wiersbe, 2:294.

[67]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes
on the Bible (Heb 5:11). Galaxie Software.

[68]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 8:18-19).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a Acts 16:13

b Lev 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut 18:11; 1 Sam 28:3, 7; 2 Kin 21:6; 1 Chr
10:13; Is 8:19

[69]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 16:16).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a Acts 17:1

1 Lit who received

2 Lit all

[70]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 17:11).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[71]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (748).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

a Jude 3

b Col 2:7; 1 Thess 5:11

c Eph 6:18

a Titus 2:13; Heb 9:28; 2 Pet 3:12

[72]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jud 21).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[73]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Jud 20). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

[74]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Jud 20). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

[75]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Jud 21). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

[76]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Jud 21). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

a Ps 32:5; Prov 28:13

b Titus 2:14

[77]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Jn 1:9).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[78]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Jud 21). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

1 Lit child

a Matt 9:2

[79]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Mk 2:5).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a Acts 11:30

1 Lit having anointed

b Mark 6:13; 16:18

a James 1:6

1 Lit of

2 Or save

b 1 Cor 1:21; James 5:20

c John 6:39; 2 Cor 4:14

3 Lit it

[80]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jas 5:14-15).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[81]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Jas 5:14). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

a Acts 9:40; James 5:14f

b Matt 9:18; Mark 5:23; 6:5

[82]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 28:8).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[83]Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible :
Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the
canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order.
(electronic ed.) (G2390). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

[84]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 28:9).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[85]Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible :
Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the
canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order.
(electronic ed.) (G2323). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

1 Or in

a Eph 1:10

b Eph 1:20f; Col 2:15

c John 1:3; Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 8:6

1 Or has existed prior to

a John 1:1; 8:58

2 Or endure

[86]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Col 1:16-17).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[87]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary
(1306). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

[88]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary
(1306). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

a Matt 11:6

b Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; John 4:44

1 Or own part of the country

1 Or works of power

[89]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Mt 13:57-58).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[90]Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary :
Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary (406). Dallas: Word,
Incorporated.

[91]Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary :
Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary (406). Dallas: Word,
Incorporated.

578 578. Bailey, The New . . ., p. 30.

[92]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes
on the Bible (Mt 13:57). Galaxie Software.

1 Or work of power

a Mark 5:23

a Matt 9:35; Mark 1:39; 10:1; Luke 13:22

[93]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Mk 6:5-6).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[94]Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary :
Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary (311). Dallas: Word,
Incorporated.

? 9 (6:4-6) J. G. Miller, further documentation unavailable.

[95]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Mk 6:4). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

a Heb 7:19

[96]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Heb 11:6).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[97]Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible :
Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the
canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order.
(electronic ed.) (G3619). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

[98]Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible :
Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the
canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order.
(electronic ed.) (G3874). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

[99]Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible :
Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the
canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order.
(electronic ed.) (G3889). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

[100]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Re 19:10).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a Acts 6:6; 8:17

b Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4; 10:46

c Acts 13:1

[101]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 19:6).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[102]Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible :
Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the
canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order.
(electronic ed.) (G2059). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

[103]Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible :
Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the
canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order.
(electronic ed.) (G2059). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

1 Lit effects

2 Or works of power

a 1 Cor 12:28f; Gal 3:5

b 1 Cor 11:4; 13:2, 8

3 Lit distinguishings

c 1 Cor 14:29; 1 John 4:1

d Mark 16:17; 1 Cor 12:28, 30; 13:1; 14:2ff

e 1 Cor 12:30; 14:26

[104]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 12:10).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[105]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (1 Co 12:10). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson.

a 1 Cor 14:15

b Rom 1:13

c 1 Cor 12:8-10

d Eph 5:19

e 1 Cor 14:6

f 1 Cor 14:2

g 1 Cor 12:10; 14:5, 13, 27f

h Rom 14:19

a 1 Cor 14:2

b 1 Cor 12:10; 14:5, 13, 26ff

[106]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co
14:26-28). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[107]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (1 Co 14:26). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson.

[108]MacArthur, J. (1996, c1984). 1 Corinthians. Includes indexes.
(385). Chicago: Moody Press.

1 Lit palm of the hand

a Dan 5:5

1 Or a mina (50 shekels) from verb "to number"

2 Or a shekel from verb "to weigh"

3 Or and half-shekels (sing: peres) from verb "to divide"

1 Lit word

a Is 13:6, 17-19; Jer 50:41-43

a Job 31:6; Ps 62:9

a Is 13:17; 21:2; 45:1, 2; Dan 5:31; 6:8, 28; Acts 2:9

1 Aram: Paras

[109]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Da 5:24-28).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a 1 Cor 16:14

b 1 Cor 12:31; 14:39

c 1 Cor 12:1

d 1 Cor 13:2

a Mark 16:17; 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1; 14:18ff

1 Lit hears

2 Or by the Spirit

b 1 Cor 13:2

a Rom 14:19; 1 Cor 14:5, 12, 17, 26

b Acts 4:36

a Mark 16:17; 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1; 14:18ff, 26f

b Rom 14:19; 1 Cor 14:5, 12, 17, 26

c 1 Cor 13:2

[110]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co
14:1-4). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[111] Wiersbe, W. W. (1997, c1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on
the New Testament (460). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

[112] Wiersbe, W. W. (1997, c1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on
the New Testament (460). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

[113] Wiersbe, W. W. (1997, c1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on
the New Testament (462). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

[114]Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (7). Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossways Books.

1 See the translation in the New International Version and the references
in various commentaries. (Ed.)

[115]Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (7). Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossways Books.

[116]Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (7). Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossways Books.

[117]Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (7). Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossways Books.
Medusa
2007-07-28 17:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog? Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
Yes, I am an atheist, and, yes, I have morals because I can reason and
see the difference between "right" and "wrong." It is wrong to take
what belongs to another human, it is wrong to mistreat animals, and it
is wrong to take the life of another human being, unless I am
defending myself.

No god has dictated these values to me; these are values I derive from
reason.

A dog does not possess the powers to reason his actions; animals are
"ammoral." An animal does not have the intellectual powers to know
wrong from right. Animals with a higher intelligence can be trained
by humans, but this is not the animal's moralsl it is the human's.
Post by U2
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from? In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from? The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator. If there is no God but only
matter, why is anything right or wrong?
Because there is human reason. Over thousands of years, humans have
reasoned out a code of conduct that makes us animals with morals.
This code of morality has changed over the centuries; it used to be
perfectly moral for one human being to own another in many parts of
the world. BTW, most of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence were atheists or deists, not Christians.
Post by U2
The debate over the existence of God has been a long one. The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1). American Vision has been on the front
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention. There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.
Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.
Next week, ABC's Nightline has Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.
No. Really. Nightline has tapped Kirk Cameron to be fidei defensor.
I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa Whelchel, Mr. T,
Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.
Instead, we'd rather hear from Douglas Wilson, author of the new book,
Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision). Wilson is senior fellow
of theology at New Saint Andrews College and minister at Christ Church in
Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has
written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A
Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. His Blog and
Mablog site inevitably makes for provocative reading.
Wilson will be corresponding with Christopher Hitchens, author of the new
book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything ( Twelve Books).
Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor
of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books,
including Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of
Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters. He was named,
to his own amusement, number five on a list of the "Top 100 Public
Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.
You'll enjoy the discussion regardless of whether you're already familiar
with Wilson and Hitchens. But if you are familiar with their work, you'll
know that it promises to be anything but boring.
I have read the Hitchens-Wilson debate on Michael Shermer's e-
magazine. Very interesting debate.

Medusa
RU Liken IT Yet!
2007-07-28 19:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Medusa
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog? Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
Yes, I am an atheist, and, yes, I have morals because I can reason and
see the difference between "right" and "wrong." It is wrong to take
what belongs to another human, it is wrong to mistreat animals, and it
is wrong to take the life of another human being, unless I am
defending myself.
No god has dictated these values to me; these are values I derive from
reason.
God has written His ethics on all men's hearts! (-;
Post by Medusa
A dog does not possess the powers to reason his actions; animals are
"ammoral." An animal does not have the intellectual powers to know
wrong from right. Animals with a higher intelligence can be trained
by humans, but this is not the animal's moralsl it is the human's.
Post by U2
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from? In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from? The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator. If there is no God but only
matter, why is anything right or wrong?
Because there is human reason. Over thousands of years, humans have
reasoned out a code of conduct that makes us animals with morals.
This code of morality has changed over the centuries; it used to be
perfectly moral for one human being to own another in many parts of
the world. BTW, most of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence were atheists or deists, not Christians.
Post by U2
The debate over the existence of God has been a long one. The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1). American Vision has been on the front
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention. There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.
Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.
Next week, ABC's Nightline has Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.
No. Really. Nightline has tapped Kirk Cameron to be fidei defensor.
I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa Whelchel, Mr. T,
Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.
Instead, we'd rather hear from Douglas Wilson, author of the new book,
Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision). Wilson is senior fellow
of theology at New Saint Andrews College and minister at Christ Church in
Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has
written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A
Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. His Blog and
Mablog site inevitably makes for provocative reading.
Wilson will be corresponding with Christopher Hitchens, author of the new
book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything ( Twelve Books).
Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor
of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books,
including Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of
Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters. He was named,
to his own amusement, number five on a list of the "Top 100 Public
Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.
You'll enjoy the discussion regardless of whether you're already familiar
with Wilson and Hitchens. But if you are familiar with their work, you'll
know that it promises to be anything but boring.
I have read the Hitchens-Wilson debate on Michael Shermer's e-
magazine. Very interesting debate.
Medusa
Vlad the accountant
2007-07-30 14:50:09 UTC
Permalink
snip reasonable argument you have chosen to ignore
God has written His ethics on all men's hearts! (-;
if you have a sharp knife and a web cam you could prove this to us.
Medusa
2007-07-30 16:09:54 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 28, 2:52 pm, "RU Liken IT Yet!"
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
Post by Medusa
Yes, I am an atheist, and, yes, I have morals because I can reason and
see the difference between "right" and "wrong." It is wrong to take
what belongs to another human, it is wrong to mistreat animals, and it
is wrong to take the life of another human being, unless I am
defending myself.
No god has dictated these values to me; these are values I derive from
reason.
God has written His ethics on all men's hearts! (-;
You just don't get it. I don't believe in any god. My morals are
from my reason.

Medusa
Richard Catto
2007-08-07 04:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Medusa
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
Post by Medusa
Yes, I am an atheist, and, yes, I have morals because I can reason and
see the difference between "right" and "wrong." It is wrong to take
what belongs to another human, it is wrong to mistreat animals, and it
is wrong to take the life of another human being, unless I am
defending myself.
No god has dictated these values to me; these are values I derive from
reason.
God has written His ethics on all men's hearts! (-;
You just don't get it. I don't believe in any god. My morals are
from my reason.
To misquote As Good as it Gets:

"How do you understand Christians so well?"

"I think of an atheist and remove all logic and reason."
Jim Austin
2007-07-28 17:20:36 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 28, 5:18 am, "U2" <***@NOThotmail.com> wrote:

<Snip> Never mind what this guy wrote.

Christians believe it's axiomatic that morality is religious-based.
Yet when we see Christianity in its pure and undiluted state, as in
Christianity in the raw as it existed during the dark ages, we see
that Christianity results in unmitigated cruelty, savagery and
barbarism. The extent that today's Christianity is benign and
civilized is entirely due to influences outside of religion, to purely
secular influences.
Danwood@gnet
2007-07-28 19:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Austin
<Snip> Never mind what this guy wrote.
Christians believe it's axiomatic that morality is religious-based.
Yet when we see Christianity in its pure and undiluted state, as in
Christianity in the raw as it existed during the dark ages, we see
that Christianity results in unmitigated cruelty, savagery and
barbarism. The extent that today's Christianity is benign and
civilized is entirely due to influences outside of religion, to purely
secular influences.
There are vile depraved cruel people who kill people with guns. You
don't blame the gun. People kill people. It's the same with religion.
There is cruelty, savagery and evil don by people. This isn't religion
it's people who did these horrible deeds. Religions are not teaching,
advocating nor are they supporting such behavior. Indeed they
denounce it. Although some people today are comitting suicide and
murdering dozen of innocent bystanders at the same time. And they do
this in the name of Allah.
RU Liken IT Yet!
2007-07-28 19:54:48 UTC
Permalink
"***@gnet" <***@noreply.com> wrote in message news:***@noreply.com...
Jim Austin wrote:


The Great White Throne Judgment of God

11 Then I saw a great white ?a?throne and Him who sat upon it,
from whose ?1?presence ?b?earth and heaven fled away, and ?c?no place
was found for them.

12 And I saw the dead, the ?a?great and the small, standing
before the throne, and ?1??b?books were opened; and another ?2?book
was opened, which is ?c?the book of life; and the dead ?a?were judged
from the things which were written in the ?1?books, ?d?according to
their deeds.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and ?a?death
and Hades ?b?gave up the dead which were in them; and they were
judged, every one of them ?c?according to their deeds.

14 Then ?a?death and Hades were thrown into ?b?the lake of fire.
This is the ?c?second death, the lake of fire.

15 And if ?1?anyone's name was not found written in ?a?the book
of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

[1]

The Great White Throne is what men mistakenly call the general judgment.
It is general only in the sense that all the lost of all ages are raised
to be judged here. All who are saved have been raised in the first
resurrection. Even the tribulation saints had part in the first
resurrection. This is the second resurrection in which the lost are raised
to be given an equitable, fair, and just evaluation of their works in
respect to their salvation.

A man on his deathbed said to me, "Preacher, you just don't need to talk
to me about the future. I'll take my chances. I believe God is going to be
just and righteous and let me present my works."

I told him, "You are right. He is just and righteous, and He will let you
present your works. That is what He says He is going to do. But I have
news for you: At that judgment nobody is saved, because you cannot be
saved by your works. When you stand in the white light of the righteous
presence of God, your little works will seem so puny that they won't
amount to anything at all."

The other day our little grandson brought to his grandmother some flowers
that he had picked. I want to tell you, they were a sad looking bunch of
flowers. With great pride he gave them to his grandmother, and his
grandmother patted him on the head and thanked him for the lovely flowers.
As I looked at that scene, I could not help but smile, but I also
immediately recognized how solemn it is going to be when a lot of these
goody-goody boys stand with their little, bitty bouquets in the presence
of a Christ whom they have rejected. They expect that He will be like a
grandmother who will pat them on the head and say, "What a smart boy you
were!" My friend, this is solemn, and this is serious. You need Him as
Savior in order to stand in His presence; you need to be clothed with the
righteousness of Christ. Don't you know that without this we are sinners
and we are lost?

We like to compare ourselves with other people: "I'm as good as the
Joneses down the street." Sure you are, but you ought to know about the
Joneses! It was Samuel Johnson who said, "Every man knows that of himself
which he dares not tell his dearest friend." You know yourself, don't you?
You know things that you have covered up and smothered that you would not
reveal for anything in the world. The Lord Jesus is going to bring them
out at this judgment; while you are presenting your little bouquet, He is
going to tell you about yourself. My friend, you need a Savior today.

This is the Great White Throne, and the holiness of this throne is
revealed in the reaction of heaven and earth to it: "from whose face the
earth and the heaven fled away." Of this, John F. Walvoord, in his book
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, comments:

The most natural interpretation of the fact that earth and heaven flee
away is that the present earth and heaven are destroyed and will be
replaced by the new heaven and new earth. This is also confirmed by the
additional statement in 21:1 where John sees a new heaven and a new earth
replacing the first heaven and the first earth which have passed away.

The One seated on the throne is the Lord Jesus Christ: "For the Father
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.. For as the
Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he
is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come
forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:22,
26-29).

What is the work of God? It is to ". believe on him whom he hath sent"
(John 6:29). Those who have done good are they who have accepted Christ,
and they come forth unto the resurrection of life-that is the first
resurrection. They who have done evil come forth unto the resurrection of
damnation and condemnation-that is the Great White Throne judgment.

[2]

Will believers stand before God at this White Throne Judgment?

No.

If you're a Christian, this judgment doesn't apply to you, for you were
judged when Christ was on another throne-not a white one, but a wooden
one; when He wore a crown not of gold, but of thorns as He died to cleanse
you from every sin you ever have or ever will commit.

[3]

If you're a Christian, your name is written in the Book of Life. The names
of those who said, "I didn't buy into that Christian stuff they were
always trying to cram down my throat," or, "I needed my space," or, "I had
to explore various aspects of spirituality," aren't.

"But I lived a pretty good life," they'll protest.

Yet the books wherein are recorded the reasons for everything they ever
did will prove otherwise..

"I was an outstanding member of Rotary."

Yes-but the books indicate it was to make some business contacts.

"Oh, but I gave blood."

Perhaps-but the books indicate you were paid twenty-five dollars in
return.

"But I saved the whales, marched for peace, built homes for the homeless."

All well and good-but you did so to hear the applause of men.

You see, God made us in such a way that we are spared from remembering the
sins we have committed. He let us remember enough sin to make us aware of
our need for salvation-but not every motive, every word of gossip, every
cutting comment, every angry feeling. When the books are opened, the utter
weight of all one's sin will come to light. God sends no one to hell. By
the time Volume 167 of one's sins is opened, it's as if he will cry,
"Depart from me for I am a sinful man," and will send himself to the lake
of fire.

That's why I am so glad I'm saved. The Bible says the "handwriting of
ordinances that was against us"-all of our mistakes, sins, and
failures-were blotted out by the blood of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:14).
In other words, the pages and pages containing my sin are all illegible
because they're covered with the red blood of Jesus.

[4]

Maybe you're saying, "What will happen at the end of the world is all very
interesting, but the bottom line is that I'm a believer, and I know I'm
going to heaven. I'm far more concerned about the problems facing me right
now."

So was John. The Book of Revelation was written specifically to a group of
people facing far greater problems than you'll ever face. And the message
it contains is as vital for us as it was to them: It's not over yet. Satan
and death itself will be cast into the lake of fire. They lose. And all
who embrace what Jesus did on the Cross when He plunged into hell on their
behalf-all whose names are written in the Book of Life-win.

[5]

20:11 Next we are introduced to the great white throne judgment. It is
great because of the issues involved and white because of the perfection
and purity of the decisions handed down. The Lord Jesus is sitting as
Judge (John 5:22, 27). The expression from whose face the earth and the
heaven fled away indicates that this judgment takes place in eternity,
after the destruction of the present creation (2 Pet. 3:10).

20:12 The dead, small and great, stand before God. These are the
unbelievers of all ages. Two sets of books are opened. The Book of Life
contains the names of all who have been redeemed by the precious blood of
Christ. The other books contain a detailed record of the works of the
unsaved. No one who appears at this judgment is registered in the Book of
Life. The fact that his name is missing condemns him, but the record of
his evil works determines the degree of his punishment.

20:13 The sea will yield up the bodies of those who have been buried in
it. The graves, here represented by Death, will deliver up the bodies of
all the unsaved who have been interred. Hades will give up the souls of
all who died in unbelief. The bodies and souls will be reunited to stand
before the Judge.

Just as there will be degrees of reward in heaven, so there will be
degrees of punishment in hell. This will be based on their works.

20:14 When we read that Death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire, it
means the complete persons: spirit, soul, and body. The text explains that
this is the second death, and the ?NKJV? margin adds, the lake of fire.

There is a difference between Hades and hell. For the unconverted who have
died, Hades is a disembodied state of conscious punishment. It is a sort
of holding tank, an intermediate condition where they await the Judgment
of the Great White Throne.

For believers who have died, Hades is a state of disembodied blessedness
in heaven, awaiting the resurrection and glorification of the body. When
Jesus died, He went to Paradise (Luke 23:43), which Paul equates with the
third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2, 4), the dwelling place of God. In Acts 2:27 the
Lord's disembodied state is called Hades. God did not leave His soul in
Hades, but clothed it with a glorified body.

Hell is the final prison of the wicked dead. It is the same as the lake of
fire, Gehenna, and the second death.

20:15 The deciding factor at this judgment is whether one's name is
written in the Book of Life. Actually if a person's name had been
inscribed there, he would have already been a part of the first
resurrection. So this verse applies only to those who stand before the
Great WhiteThrone.

[6]

Yes, my friend, you will be able to get a fair trial there. Your life is
on tape, and Christ happens to have the tape. When He plays it back, you
will be able to listen to it, and it is not going to sound good to you, by
any means. Are you willing to stand before God and have Him play the tape
of your life? I think He will have it on a television screen so that you
can watch it, too. Do you think your life can stand the test? I do not
know about you, but I could not make it. Thank God for His grace-"For by
grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the
gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).

The dead are classified as the small and the great. They are all lost, for
evidently none have their names written in the Book of Life. They had
never turned to God for salvation. The Lord Jesus said that in His
generation ". ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (John
5:40). These folk standing before His throne had not come.

These are books which record the works of all individuals. God keeps the
tapes, and He will play them at the right time. There will be a lot of
politicians who will have their tapes played in that day, and there will
be a lot of public figures-even preachers-who will have their tapes played
in that day, and they are not going to be happy about it. If you are
saved, you are not going to stand before this judgment. Your works are to
be judged as a child of God at the judgment seat of Christ, which will be
for the purpose of rewards (see 2 Cor. 5:10). The Great White Throne
judgment is the judgment of the lost. Multitudes want to be judged
according to their works. This is their opportunity. The judgment is just,
but no one is saved by works.

"And the sea gave up the dead that were in it." Multitudes who have gone
to a watery grave in which the chemicals of their bodies have been
dissolved in the waters of the sea will be raised. God will have no
problem with this. After all, they are only atoms. He just has to put them
together again. He did it once; He can do it again. The graves on earth
will give up their bodies; and hades, the place where the spirits of the
lost go, will disgorge for this judgment.

[7]

And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
death even the lake of fire. And if any were not found written in the book
of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.

You will notice that in my translation I have changed "death and hell were
cast into the lake of fire" to "death and Hades were cast into the lake of
fire." Sheol or hades (translated hell in the New Testament) is the place
of the unseen dead and is divided into two compartments: paradise and the
place of torment (see Luke 16:19-31). Paradise was emptied when Christ
took the Old Testament believers with Him at His ascension. "Wherefore he
saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave
gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also
descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is
the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill
all things)" (Eph. 4:8-10). Christ did two things: He gave gifts to men
down here, but He also took with Him to heaven those Old Testament saints
who had died and were in the place called paradise. But the place of
torment will deliver up the lost at the judgment at the Great White
Throne. All who stand at this judgment are lost, and we are told that they
are cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death. The Lord also
called it "outer darkness." We believe that this is symbolic of something
worse than literal fire or outer darkness. It is eternal separation from
God, for death means separation.

[8]

"Death," the great final enemy of man, is finally removed from the scene.
No longer will it be said, "In Adam all die" (see 1 Cor. 15:22). Death is
personified in this case, for it is man's great enemy. In the Old
Testament we read: "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will
redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be
thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes" (Hos. 13:14).

And Paul writes: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.. O
death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" (1 Cor. 15:26,
55).

"Hades," the prison of lost souls, is likewise cast into the lake of fire.
The lost are no longer in hades but in the lake of fire. This is where
Satan, the wild Beast, the False Prophet, and their minions were
consigned. If man will not accept the life of God, he must accept the only
other alternative: eternal association with Satan. God never created man
to be put in this place, but there is no other place for him. Hell was
created for the Devil and his angels. I take it that it is a place where
God never goes. The second death means eternal and absolute separation
from God.

[9]

EMPTY WORDS

The false teachers talked a lot but had no substance; their words were
lies. Life is filled with promises. We build families on promises, spend
careers on promises, and trust God himself for the great promise of a
joyous future. If promises fail, life collapses.

Do your best to make good on your word. So many people depend on your
integrity. So much happiness rides on your honesty. Don't promise what you
can't or won't deliver, as did the false teachers. Their lives were wasted
because their promises were empty.

[10]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

a Rev 4:2 1 Lit face b Rev 6:14; 21:1 c Dan 2:35; Rev 12:8 a Rev 11:18 1
Or scrolls b Dan 7:10 2 Or scroll c Rev 3:5; 20:15 d Matt 16:27; Rev 2:23;
20:13 a 1 Cor 15:26; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 21:4 b Is 26:19 c Matt 16:27; Rev
2:23; 20:12 a 1 Cor 15:26; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 21:4 b Rev 19:20; 20:10, 15 c
Rev 20:6 1 Lit anyone was a Rev 3:5; 20:12

[1]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Re 20:11-15). LaHabra,
CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[2]McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on the
Thru the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (5:1059-1060). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson.

[3]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (1784).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

[4]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (1784).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

[5]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (1784).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

NKJV New King James Version

[6]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary
: Old and New Testaments (Re 20:11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[7]McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on the
Thru the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (5:1060-1061). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson.

[8]McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on the
Thru the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (5:1061). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

[9]McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on the
Thru the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (5:1061-1062). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson.

[10]Barton, B. B. (1995). 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude. Life application Bible
commentary (253). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Pub.
Jim Austin
2007-07-29 00:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gnet
Post by Jim Austin
<Snip> Never mind what this guy wrote.
Christians believe it's axiomatic that morality is religious-based.
Yet when we see Christianity in its pure and undiluted state, as in
Christianity in the raw as it existed during the dark ages, we see
that Christianity results in unmitigated cruelty, savagery and
barbarism. The extent that today's Christianity is benign and
civilized is entirely due to influences outside of religion, to purely
secular influences.
There are vile depraved cruel people who kill people with guns. You
don't blame the gun. People kill people. It's the same with religion.
There is cruelty, savagery and evil don by people. This isn't religion
it's people who did these horrible deeds. Religions are not teaching,
advocating nor are they supporting such behavior. Indeed they
denounce it. Although some people today are comitting suicide and
murdering dozen of innocent bystanders at the same time. And they do
this in the name of Allah.
Actually, it is religion.

Religious people kill with enthusiasm. Religious people feel righteous
killing people. Religious people do not blink at filling the
countryside with bodies piled high.
Al Klein
2007-07-30 04:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gnet
There are vile depraved cruel people who kill people with guns. You
don't blame the gun. People kill people. It's the same with religion.
Guns don't motivate people to kill, they provide the means. Religion
provides the motivation.
Hatter
2007-08-24 12:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
Post by ***@gnet
There are vile depraved cruel people who kill people with guns. You
don't blame the gun. People kill people. It's the same with religion.
Guns don't motivate people to kill, they provide the means. Religion
provides the motivation.
or at least the "I can get forgiven later" justification

Hatter
Al Klein
2007-08-24 12:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hatter
Post by Al Klein
Post by ***@gnet
There are vile depraved cruel people who kill people with guns. You
don't blame the gun. People kill people. It's the same with religion.
Guns don't motivate people to kill, they provide the means. Religion
provides the motivation.
or at least the "I can get forgiven later" justification
For Christians. For some others it's, "Killing them is required by my
god."
Jim07D7
2007-07-28 18:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by U2
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog? Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
Setting up a straw man atheist is silly. Instead, take several
non-theistic replies and think about them. Even a theist should be
able to generate a non-theistic reply that is not full of straw man
fallacies. Here's mine.

First, morality is a system for controlling behavior in a society or
group, that relies on internalization of motivators by the individual
members of the society. A successful moral code benefits the
individuals and the society. Of course, by other moral codes, a
particular moral code might be considered immoral.

Second, societies enshrine their morality in institutions like
religion, which gives the moral code an aura of divine approval and
absoluteness, and helps preserve it over time. Many people do not
realize this. In fact, the indoctrination process causes some people
to never realize this. Theists in particular, have difficulty with
this.

Of course moral rules are also enforced by the legal system, when
religion is not sufficient and the rule is important enough.

There are gradients of importance and enforcement. "Good manners" or
etiquette is probably the weakest, and criminal felony law the
strongest.

"Murder" is legally defined as a felony; the premeditated, deliberate,
willfully unlawful killing of a human being. (Note that "morally
wrong" does not enter into it.) We generally do not think of dogs as
capable of such premeditation, deliberation or willfully unlawful
action toward humans or toward other animals. IOW, we do not think of
them as "moral agents", at least in under law. Individual dog owners
might well think their dogs are intentionally doing good or bad, at
times.

Humans and non-human animals (and even things like "future
generations") can be and are considered, in some moral codes, as
having the potential of being "moral victims". (In the past, certain
kinds of humans were not treated as having this potential, but instead
were treated as property. Arguably, this persists today.)

Third, you've never been responsible for training a dog, apparently.

Motivators for socially approved behavior work pretty much the same in
dogs and humans, and can be internalized in both species. Dogs appear
to be motivated by much the same things as humans.

Also, approved behavior of dogs and approved behavior of humans is
about the same.

One apparent difference is the degree to which we can use language
alone to communicate rules, and internalize motivators, with humans,
versus with dogs.

Another is that the pack and hierarchy within the pack appears to be
more important in dogs, and they can transfer this relationship to
their human and the human family they live with.

"Life force" is an antiquated idea. "Random" materialism is not
necessary for atheists to espouse. In fact, it's a contradiction in
terms, since materialism sees regularities in nature.

What else did you want to know?
RU Liken IT Yet!
2007-07-28 19:54:00 UTC
Permalink
"Jim07D7" <***@nospam.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

There is Hate in the World and There is also a Supernatural Enemy

John 15:18-20 (NASB95)

Disciples' Relation to the World

18 "aIf the world hates you, 1you know that it has hated Me
before it hated you.

19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but
because you are not of the world, but aI chose you out of the world,
bbecause of this the world hates you.

20 "Remember the word that I said to you, 'aA slave is not
greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, bthey will also
persecute you; if they ckept My word, they will keep yours also.

[1]

If the world loves you, watch out-you're in hot water. Paul told his
protigi, Timothy, that all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
persecution (2 Timothy 3:12). That's a fact. If you are living godly,
you're not going to make it into the Who's Who of the world's system. It
just won't work that way.

[2]

15:18, 19 Since Satan is the one who dominates the evil world system in
rebellion against God (14:30), the result is that the world hates not only
Jesus, but those who follow Him (2 Tim. 3:12). Hatred toward Jesus means
also hatred toward the Father who sent Him (v. 23).

15:20 servant...master. That axiom, spoken also in 13:16, reflects the
obvious truth that led Jesus to inform His disciples. They could expect to
be treated like He was treated because those who hated Him don't know God
(v. 21) and would hate them also; and conversely, those who listened with
faith to Him, would hear them also.

[3]

The reason the world will hate you is because you're light (1
Thessalonians 5:5). And when light shines, people in the dark get real
uneasy. Like bugs under a rock, they start scrambling and fleeing. "If I
hadn't come," said Jesus, "men could continue on in their sin, and no one
would feel uncomfortable. But because I came, because of how I lived,
because of where I stand, men have no cloak for their sin. Consequently,
they feel exposed and foolish in their iniquity. And will hate you as a
result."[4]

Jesus Predicts the World's Hatred (15:18-16:4)

15:18, 19 The disciples were not to be surprised or disheartened if the
world hates them. (The if does not express any doubt that this would
happen; it was certain.) The world hated the Lord, and it will hate all
who resemble Him.

Men of the world love those who live as they do-those who use vile
language and indulge in the lusts of the flesh, or people who are cultured
but live only for themselves. Christians condemn them by their holy lives,
therefore the world hates them.

15:20 Here servant literally means "slave." A disciple should not expect
any better treatment from the world than his Master received. He will be
persecuted just as Christ was. His word will be refused just as the
Savior's was.

[5]

Notice what will happen if you are a child of God. The world will hate
you. I believe that a Christian's popularity can be an indication of how
he is representing Christ to the world. I do not believe a Christian can
be popular in the world. No Christian has any right to be more popular
than Jesus was. Beware of a compromising position in order to be popular.
The world will not love a real child of God. The world will love you if
you are of the world. You don't have to act oddly or be super-pious. The
world will hate you if you are a child of God. This is difficult,
especially for young people who want so much to be popular. Let's tell our
young people what the Lord says. They are not going to be popular with the
world if they are the children of God.

Unfortunately, there are folk in the church today who are not honestly
born again, and they will also hate you if you are a child of God. They
will hate the preacher if he is true to the Word of God. May I say again,
beware of the Christian who is popular with the world.

[6]

15:18-19 "If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it
hated you." NRSV Jesus was hated from the very beginning (when Jesus was a
young child, King Herod sought him out to kill him-Matthew 2:13-16). He
was hated at the end when the people rejected him as the Savior and called
for his crucifixion. The same world would surely hate those who proclaim
allegiance to the crucified Lord.

"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you
do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That
is why the world hates you." NIV Jesus wants believers to be distinctive;
he sets us apart from the world. His choosing and setting us apart makes
us holy and helps us grow. Our very separation from the world arouses the
world's animosity. The world would prefer that we were like them; since we
are not, they hate us (see 1 Peter 4:3-4).

. WELCOMED REJECTION

Jesus taught us to expect rejection. Rejection may be difficult to take,
but if we never experience it, we may be hiding our Christianity from
others. If we profess Christ and are warmly embraced by the world, we
should reexamine our commitment and life-style. If we remain silent about
our faith in order to gain acceptance by the world, we have made a poor
trade. In fact, we are being dishonest in two ways: We deny the faith we
claim as central in our lives, and we deceive those whose acceptance we
want by not revealing our Christian faith. The Scriptures warn us,
"Friendship with the world is hatred toward God" (James 4:4 niv; see also
2 Timothy 3:10-12; 1 John 2:15-17; 3:1; 4:5-6).

[7]

15:18 Jesus wanted to prepare His disciples for the opposition that they
would face after His departure. To do this He announced first that they
would encounter opposition from the world (cf. 1 John 3:13). Here the
world (Gr. kosmos) refers to the mass of unbelievers. The conditional
sentence in the Greek text assumes the reality of what Jesus stated for
the argument's sake. The world would hate them. A person cannot be an
intimate friend of Jesus (i.e., and abiding believer) without drawing
hatred from His enemies.

The world hates Jesus because He testified that its deeds are evil (7:7).
His abiding disciples draw hatred from the world because they associate
themselves with Him and His teachings and because they seek to advance His
mission. Remembering the world's hatred for the Master makes bearing that
hatred easier for His disciple.

15:19 Believers are aliens in the world because Jesus has called us out of
it to fulfill His plans and purposes. The world does not hate us because
we are superior but because we are servants of the Lord whom it has
rejected.

[8]

John 7:7 (NASB95)

7 "aThe world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify
of it, that bits deeds are evil.

[9]

. Why are Christians Hated?

John 15:18-15:27

One of the things that confuses many Christians is the attitude of
non-Christians toward them. Most of us think that since we go to the world
with the greatest and most important message in all of history that the
world would applaud and cheer. For the most part, people are not waiting
for that message with open arms. In fact, the Bible says that the world
does not want us or our message. They hate us. Hate? That is what Jesus
said.

Why does the world hate Christians?

A. Because Christians are different. (18,19)

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hate you."

"world" is not the earth. Everyone lives in the physical world. It is the
word - cosmos. It is the word from which we get the word COSMETICS. It
means "to put in order." Cosmetics are designed to put women's faces in
order. Most of you have watched women putting on their make-up with the
use of the car mirror while on their way to work.

The world than is organized. Put in order. It is a system run by an
intelligent head, the devil. He has one specific goal: to get this world
order to leave God out. The word "worldly" then as it is used biblically
means to operate as if there is no God. Don Carson - The created moral
order in active rebellion against God. To buy into that system and operate
within that system that in practice and lifestyle operates independently
of God.

You cannot reconcile the war between the kingdom of this world and the
kingdom of God. (James 4:4) "Know ye not that the friendship of the world
is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be the friend of the world is
the enemy of God." You cannot be a friend of that which hates the Father.
The world says: disobey God, forget God, don't follow God, leave God out,
forsake God. You can't be a friend of something like that. You can't have
God and the world.

(Rom 12:2) "Don't be conformed to this world." Don't be squeezed into its
mold. Don't let the world tell you what to do.

Ho do you know when the world is telling you what to do? Can you include
God? Anything that keeps you from including God is worldly.

As a Christian, what can I do? Anything God can do with you. If Jesus has
to wait outside while you do it, DON'T DO IT!

You love what you spend your time, your money and your energy on. If very
little of it is going to God, then God is not the One you love.

(19) "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because
ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore
the world hateth you."

The more you look like Christ the more the world is going to treat you the
same way it treated Him. When you don't act, talk or think like the world
does, you are going to make the crowd uncomfortable. You are not going to
be "one of us." The fact is you are not. God has "chosen you out" by His
sovereign grace. This concept of a Christian living in the world, but not
being of the world is a key concept to understand what it means to be a
Christian. "His own" are those who have become at home in the world. Life
on this earth is all they live for. They spend their lives trying to get
the things of this world. Their values are wrapped up in power, pleasure
and possessions.

B. Because Christians insist on an absolute standard.(20-24)

(20) "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater
than his lord. If they have presecuted Me, they will also persecute you;
if they have kept My saying, they will keep yours also."

If the church today is not undergoing persecution it may be because there
is very little distinction between the world and the church. Religious
surveys consistently show that there are no noticeable differences between
the lifestyles of those who attend church and those who do not. Church
members wear the same clothes as the secular culture, watch the same
movies, get divorced at the same rate, buy as many lottery tickets, have
as man affairs and use just as many questionable business practices. The
secular culture has so invaded the minds and hearts of those in the church
both in the pew and the pulpit, that the godless society sees nothing
about the church worth persecuting. That in itself may be the most telling
criticism the church faces today.

(21) "Butall these things will they do unto you for My name's sake,
because they know not Him that sent Me."

They hated Jesus because they did not know the Father. They will hate you
becaue they don't know Jesus.

(22) "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but
now they have no cloak for their sin."

If Jesus had kept His mouth shut and just gone around healing and feeding
people, there wouldn't have been any trouble. But He exposed their sin.

(23) "He that hateth Me hateth My Father also."

You can't have the Father without the Son.

(24) "If I had not done among them the works which none other man did,
they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both Me and My
Father."

They heard what He said and they saw His lifestyle and it revealed their
sinfulness. Now there was an absolute standard. Everything is to be
measured against Jesus. When you live a life that imitates Christ it will
bring to mind their own sins. They do not want a Christian who reflects
God's holiness. Folks want to hear "we all sin." They don't want to be
confronted by a higher standard. That is why they are so quick to latch on
to anything negative they hear about the church.

C. Because Christians remind them of the God they hate. (25-27)

(25) "But this cometh to pass, that the Word might be fulfilled that is
written in their law, They hated Me with a cause."

Remember when you were in school. Sometimes they graded on a CURVE. The
highest grade became a 100. It created a whole new standard. Jesus messed
up the curve. When He graded out 100 everyone else had to be compared to
Him.

Harry Ironside told the story of the missionary in Africa. In a very
backward village, he left a mirror hanging on a tree after shaving. The
wife of the tribal chief came along and looked into it. She had never seen
a mirror before. She asked "Who is that ugly woman?" When the missionary
explained the mirror to her and told her that it was she. She got made,
threw the mirror down and crushed it.

The world doesn't want to be shown what it looks like. It makes them mad.
They can't take out their hatred on Christ, so they take it out on you.

(26) "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He
shall testify of Me."

How am I going to make it in this hostile world? "The Comforter" will give
me the staying power.

(27) "And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from
the beginning."

The Holy Spirit witnesses and you witness. You have a strength beyond
yourself ot go on in your Christian witness. A witness is someone who
simply tells what he or she has experienced.

Billy Graham is now in his 80's and has Parkinson's Disease. Just a few
years ago, he told this story that reveals that he understood that this
world is not our home. Many wonderful things had been said about him as he
stepped to the podium at a luncheon given in his honor in his hometown of
Charlotte, N.C.

"I'm reminded today of Albert Einstein, the great physicist who this month
has been honore by Time magazine as the Man of the Century. Einstein was
once traveling from Princeton on a train when the conductor came down the
aisle, punching tickets of every passenger. When he came to Einstein,
Einstein reached in his vest pocket. He couldn't find his ticket, so he
reached in his trousers pocket. It wasn't there. So he looked in in his
briefcase but couldn't find it. Then he looked in the seat beside him. He
still couldn't find it.

The conductor said "Dr. Einstein, I know who you are. We all know who you
are. I'm sure you bought a ticket. Don't worry about it". Einstein nodded
appreciatively. The conductor continued down the aisle punching tickets.
As he was ready to move to the next car, he turned around and saw the
great physicist down on his hands and knees looking under his seat for his
ticket. The conductor rushed back and said, "Dr. Einstein, don't worry, I
know who you are. No problem. You don't need a ticket. I'm sure you bought
one."

Einstein looked at the conductor and said, "Young man, I too, know who I
am. What I don't know is where I'm going."

Having said that Billy Graham continued, "See the suit I'm wearing? It's a
brand new suit. My wife, my children, and my grandchildren are telling me
I've gotten a little slovenly in my old age. I used to be more fastidious.
So I went out and bought a new suit for this luncheon and one more
occasion.

You know what that occasion is? This is the suit in which I'll be buried.
But when you hear I'm dead, I don't want you to immediately remember the
suit I'm wearing. I want you to remember this:

I NOT ONLY KNOW WHO I AM...I ALSO KNOW WHERE I'M GOING."

That is the message that we are called to share with a lost world. We know
who we are in Christ and we know where we will spend eternity. And we know
how they can have the same assurance.

It is not a popular message. Most will reject it. Sharing the message may
make you very unpopular with people. But you will be popular with the
Christ who first brought it and received an even worse reception.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

a John 7:7; 1 John 3:13 1 Or (imperative) know that a John 15:16 b
Matt 10:22; 24:9; John 17:14 a Matt 10:24; John 13:16 b 1 Cor 4:12; 2
Cor 4:9; 2 Tim 3:12 c John 8:51

[1] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The
Lockman Foundation.

[2]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (567).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

[3]MacArthur, J. J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic
ed.) (Jn 15:18). Nashville: Word Pub.

[4]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (567).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

[5]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary
: Old and New Testaments (Jn 15:18). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[6]McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on the
Thru the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (4:470). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

NRSV Scripture quotations marked NRSV are taken from the New Revised
Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted, 1989 by the Division of
Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in
the United States of America, and are used by permission. All rights
reserved.

NIV Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New
International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by
International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing
House. All rights reserved.

[7]Barton, B. B. (1993). John. Life application Bible commentary (316).
Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

[8]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the
Bible (Jn 15:18-19). Galaxie Software.

a John 15:18f

b John 3:19f

[9] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The
Lockman Foundation.
Jim07D7
2007-07-28 22:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
There is Hate in the World and There is also a Supernatural Enemy
There is hate in the world. The rest is dramatic license.
RU Liken IT Yet!
2007-07-29 01:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim07D7
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
There is Hate in the World and There is also a Supernatural Enemy
There is hate in the world. The rest is dramatic license.
Nope!

JESUS IS THE CREATOR.

(Colossians 155-17 NASB)

15 1 He is the a image of the b invisible God, the c firstborn of all
creation.

16 For 1 a by Him all things were created, aboth in the heavens and on
earth, visible and invisible, whether b thrones or dominions or rulers or
authorities- c all things have been created through Him and for Him.

17 He 1 a is before all things, and in Him all things 2 hold together. 1

The Glories of Christ the Church's Head (1:15-23)

1:15 In the next four verses, we have the Lord Jesus described: (1) in His
relationship to God (v. 15); (2) in His relationship to creation (vv. 16,
17); and (3) in His relationship to the church (v. 18).

The Lord is here described as the image of the invisible God. Image
carries with it at least two ideas. First, it conveys the thought that the
Lord Jesus has enabled us to see what God is like. God is Spirit and is
therefore invisible. But in the Person of Christ, God made Himself visible
to mortal eyes. In that sense the Lord Jesus is the image of the invisible
God. Whoever has seen Him has seen the Father (see John 14:9). But the
word image also conveys the idea of "representative." God had originally
placed Adam on the earth to represent His interests, but Adam failed.
Therefore, God sent His only begotten Son into the world as His
Representative to care for His interests and to reveal His heart of love
to man. In that sense, He is the image of God. The same word image is used
in 3:10, where believers are said to be the image of Christ.

Christ is also the firstborn over all creation, or "of every created
being." What does this mean? Some false teachers suggest that the Lord
Jesus is Himself a created being, that He was the first Person whom God
ever made. Some of them are even willing to go so far as to admit that He
is the greatest creature ever to come from the hand of God. But nothing
could be more directly contrary to the teaching of the word of God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----

1 Lit Who is a 2 Cor 4:4 b John 1:1 c Rom 8:29 1 Or in a Eph 1:10 b Eph
1:20f; Col 2:15 c John 1:3; Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 8:6 1 Or has existed prior to
a John 1:1; 8:58 2 Or endure

1New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Col 1:15-17). LaHabra,
CA: The Lockman Foundation.

KJV King James Version

2MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary :
Old and New Testaments (Col 1:15). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

a Gen 1:1; Col 1:17; 1 John 1:1 b John 1:14; Rev 19:13 c John 17:5; 1 John
1:2 d Phil 2:6 1 Lit This one a John 1:10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2 a
John 5:26; 11:25; 14:6 b John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46 a John 3:19 1 Or overpower

3New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 1:1-5). LaHabra, CA:
The Lockman Foundation.

NKJV New King James Version

4MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary :
Old and New Testaments (Jn 1:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

5McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on the Thru
the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (4:369-370). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.

The expression "firstborn" has at least three different meanings in
Scripture. In Luke 2:7, it is used in a literal sense, where Mary brought
forth her firstborn Son. There it means that the Lord Jesus was the first
Child to whom she gave birth. In Exodus 4:22, on the other hand, it is
used in a figurative sense. "Israel is My son, even My firstborn." In that
verse there is no thought of an actual birth having taken place, but the
Lord is using this word to describe the distinctive place which the nation
of Israel had in His plans and purposes. Finally, in Psalm 89:27, the word
"firstborn" is used to designate a place of superiority, of supremacy, of
uniqueness. There God says that He will make David His firstborn, higher
than the kings of the earth. David was actually the last-born son of Jesse
according to the flesh. But God determined to give him a place of unique
supremacy, primacy, and sovereignty.

Is not that exactly the thought of Colossians 1:15-the firstborn over all
creation? The Lord Jesus Christ is God's unique Son. In one sense all
believers are sons of God, but the Lord Jesus is God's Son in a way that
is not true of any other. He existed before all creation and occupies a
position of supremacy over it. His is the rank of eminence and dominion.
The expression firstborn over all creation has nothing to do with birth
here. It simply means that He is God's Son by an eternal relationship. It
is a title of priority of position, and not simply one of time.

1:16 False teachers use verse 15 (especially in the KJV) to teach that the
Lord Jesus was a created being. Error can usually be refuted from the very
passage of Scripture which the cultists use. That is the case here. Verse
16 states conclusively that the Lord Jesus is not a creature, but the very
Creator. In this verse we learn that all things-the whole universe of
things-were created not only by Him but through Him and for Him. Each of
these prepositions conveys a different thought. First of all, we read that
by Him all things were created. Here the thought is that the power to
create was in His Being. He was the Architect. Later in the verse we learn
that all things were created through Him. This speaks of Him as the Agent
in creation. He was the Person of the Godhead through whom the creative
act was performed. Also, all things were created for Him. He is the One
for whom all things were created, the goal of creation.

Paul goes to great lengths to emphasize that all things were created
through Christ, whether things in heaven, or things on earth. This leaves
no loopholes for anyone to suggest that although He created some things,
He Himself was created originally.

The apostle then goes on to state that the Lord's creation included things
visible and things invisible. The word visible needs no explanation, but
doubtless the Apostle Paul realized that when he said invisible he would
arouse our curiosity. Therefore, he proceeds to give a break-down of what
he means by things invisible. They include thrones, dominions,
principalities, and powers. We believe that these terms refer to angelic
beings, although we cannot distinguish between the different ranks of
these intelligent beings.

The Gnostics taught that there were various ranks and classes of spirit
beings between God and matter, and that Christ belonged to one of these
classes. In our day the Spiritists claim that Jesus Christ is an advanced
spirit of the sixth sphere. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that before our Lord
came into the world, He was a created angel and none other than the
archangel Michael! Here Paul vigorously refutes such absurd notions by
stating in the clearest possible terms that the Lord Jesus Christ is the
Creator of angels-in fact, of all beings, whether visible or invisible.

1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Paul says,
"He is before all things," not "He was before all things." The present
tense is often used in the Bible to describe the timelessness of Deity.
The Lord Jesus said, for instance: "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58).

Not only did the Lord Jesus exist before there was any creation, but also
in Him all things consist. This means that He is the Sustainer of the
universe and the Source of its perpetual motion. He controls the stars and
the sun and the moon. Even while He was here on earth He was the One who
was controlling the laws by which our universe functions in an orderly
manner.

2

(John 1-5 NASB)

The Deity of Jesus Christ

1 a In the beginning was b the Word, and the Word was c with God, and d
the Word was God.

2 1 He was in the beginning with God.

3 a All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing
came into being that has come into being.

4 a In Him was life, and the life was b the Light of men.

5 a The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not 1
comprehend it. 3

Jehovah's Witness misinterpret this as v1 the Word was "a" god.

The Word in Eternity and Time (1:1-5)

1:1 In the beginning was the Word. He did not have a beginning Himself,
but existed from all eternity. As far as the human mind can go back, the
Lord Jesus was there. He never was created. He had no beginning. (A
genealogy would be out of place in this Gospel of the Son of God.) The
Word was with God. He had a separate and distinct personality. He was not
just an idea, a thought, or some vague kind of example, but a real Person
who lived with God. The Word was God. He not only dwelt with God, but He
Himself was God.

The Bible teaches that there is one God and that there are three Persons
in the Godhead-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three of
these Persons are God. In this verse, two of the Persons of the Godhead
are mentioned-God the Father and God the Son. It is the first of many
clear statements in this Gospel that Jesus Christ is God. It is not enough
to say that He is "a god," that He is godlike, or that He is divine. The
Bible teaches that He is God.

1:2 Verse 2 would appear to be a mere repetition of what has been said,
but actually it is not. This verse teaches that Christ's personality and
deity were without beginning. He did not become a person for the first
time as the Babe of Bethlehem. Nor did He somehow become a god after His
resurrection, as some teach today. He is God from all eternity.

1:3 All things were made through Him. He Himself was not a created being;
rather He was the Creator of all things. This includes mankind, the
animals, the heavenly planets, the angels -all things visible and
invisible. Without Him nothing was made that was made. There can be no
possible exception. If a thing was made, He made it. As Creator, He is, of
course, superior to anything He has created. All three Persons of the
Godhead were involved in the work of creation: "God created the heavens
and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). "The Spirit of God was hovering over the face
of the waters" (Gen. 1:2). "All things were created through Him (Christ)
and for Him" (Col. 1:16b).

1:4 In Him was life. This does not simply mean that He possessed life, but
that He was and is the source of life. The word here includes both
physical and spiritual life. When we were born, we received physical life.
When we are born again, we receive spiritual life. Both come from Him.

The life was the light of men. The same One who supplied us with life is
also the light of men. He provides the guidance and direction necessary
for man. It is one thing to exist, but quite another to know how to live,
to know the true purpose of life, and to know the way to heaven. The same
One who gave us life is the One who provides us with light for the pathway
we travel.

There are seven wonderful titles of our Lord Jesus Christ in this opening
chapter of the Gospel. He is called (1) the Word (vv. 1, 14); (2) the
Light (vv. 5, 7); (3) the Lamb of God (vv. 29, 36); (4) the Son of God
(vv. 34, 49); (5) the Christ (Messiah) (v. 41); (6) the King of Israel (v.
49); and (7) the Son of Man (v. 51). The first four titles, each of which
is mentioned at least twice, seem to be universal in application. The last
three titles, each of which is mentioned only once, had their first
application to Israel, God's ancient people.

1:5 The light shines in the darkness. The entrance of sin brought darkness
to the minds of men. It plunged the world into darkness in the sense that
men in general neither knew God nor wanted to know Him. Into this darkness
the Lord Jesus came-a light shining in a dark place.

The darkness did not comprehend it. This may mean that the darkness did
not understand the Lord Jesus when He came into the world. Men did not
realize who He really was, or why He had come. Another meaning, however,
is given in the NKJV margin: the darkness did not overcome it. Then the
thought would be that man's rejection and enmity did not prevent the true
light from shining. 4

WORD IS GOD-WORD BECAME FLESH-WORD REVEALED GOD

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God [John 1:1].

The Gospel of John introduces the Lord Jesus Christ with three tremendous
statements:

"In the beginning was the Word,"

"And the Word was with God,"

"And the Word was God."

"The Word" is one of the highest and most profound titles of the Lord
Jesus Christ. To determine the exact meaning is not easy. Obviously the
Lord Jesus Christ is not the logos of Greek philosophy; rather He is the
memra of the Hebrew Scriptures. Notice how important the Word is in the
Old Testament. For instance, the name for Jehovah was never pronounced. It
was such a holy word that they never used it at all. But this is the One
who is the Word and, gathering up everything that was said of Him in the
Old Testament, He is now presented as the One "In the beginning." This
beginning antedates the very first words in the Bible, "In the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth." That beginning can be dated,
although I do not believe that anyone can date it accurately-it is
nonsense to say that it is 4004 B.C., as Ussher's dating has it. It
probably goes back billions and billions of years. You see, you and I are
dealing with the God of eternity. When you go back to creation He is
already there, and that is exactly the way this is used-"in the beginning
was the Word." Notice it is not is the Word; it was not in the beginning
that the Word started out or was begotten. Was (as Dr. Lenske points out)
is known as a durative imperfect, meaning continued action. It means that
the Word was in the beginning. What beginning? Just as far back as you
want to go. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth" (Gen. 1:1). Does that begin God? No, just keep on going back
billions and trillions and "squillions" of years. I can think back to
billions of years back of creation-maybe you can go beyond that-but let's
put down a point there, billions of years back of creation. He already
was; He comes out of eternity to meet us. He did not begin. "In the
beginning was the Word"-He was already there when the beginning was.
"Well," somebody says, "there has to be a beginning somewhere." All right,
wherever you begin, He is there to meet you, He is already past tense. "In
the beginning was the Word"-five words in the original language, and there
is not a man on topside of this earth who can put a date on it or
understand it or fathom it. This first tremendous statement starts us off
in space, you see.

The second statement is this, "and the Word was with God." This makes it
abundantly clear that He is separate and distinct from God the Father. You
cannot identify Him as God the Father because He is with God. "But,"
someone says, "if He is with God, He is not God." The third statement sets
us straight, "and the Word was God." This is a clear, emphatic declaration
that the Lord Jesus Christ is God. In fact, the Greek is more specific
than this, because in the Greek language the important word is placed at
the beginning of the sentence and it reads, "God was the Word." That is
emphatic; you cannot get it more emphatic than that. Do you want to get
rid of the deity of Christ? My friend, you cannot get rid of it. The first
three statements in John's gospel tie the thing down. "In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Let's move on down to verse 14 and notice the three statements there.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
[John 1:14].

"And the Word was made flesh,"

"And the Word dwelt among us,"

"He was full of grace and truth."

The Greek philosopher probably would have stayed with us through verse
one, but he leaves us here. He would never agree that the Word was made
flesh. The Greek language allows us to put it more specifically and, I
think, more accurately: "The Word was born flesh." Turn this over in your
mind for a moment. Here comes God out of eternity, already the Ancient of
days; but He also came to Bethlehem, a little baby thing that made a woman
cry. And notice that John's gospel does not even mention His birth in
Bethlehem. Do you know why? He is talking about One who is too big for
Bethlehem. Out of eternity, the Word became flesh.

"And [the Word] dwelt among us" is the second statement in verse 14.
"Dwelt" is from skenoo; it means "He pitched His tent among us." Our human
bodies are merely little tents in which we live. The apostle Paul used the
same imagery: ". we know that if . this tabernacle were dissolved ." (2
Cor. 5:1). This house in which we live is a tabernacle, a tent, that can
be blown over in a night; it can be snuffed out in an instant. Because you
and I live in these little tents, the God of eternity took upon Himself a
human body and thus pitched His tent down here among us. Such is the
second tremendous statement.

Notice the third, "(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Now John is saying
something else. The question I would naturally ask at this point is, "If
He was made flesh, He certainly limited Himself." John says, "Wait a
minute-He was full of grace and truth." The word "full" means that you
just could not have any more. He brought all the deity with Him, and He
was full of grace and full of truth when He came down here. 5
Jim07D7
2007-07-29 04:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
Post by Jim07D7
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
There is Hate in the World and There is also a Supernatural Enemy
There is hate in the world. The rest is dramatic license.
Nope!
JESUS IS THE CREATOR.
That's part of the dramatic lisence. Even the upper case is evidence.
Conspiracy of Doves
2007-07-28 20:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog? Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from? In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from? The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator. If there is no God but only
matter, why is anything right or wrong?
The debate over the existence of God has been a long one. The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1). American Vision has been on the front
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention. There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.
Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.
Next week, ABC's Nightline has Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.
No. Really. Nightline has tapped Kirk Cameron to be fidei defensor.
I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa Whelchel, Mr. T,
Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.
Instead, we'd rather hear from Douglas Wilson, author of the new book,
Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision). Wilson is senior fellow
of theology at New Saint Andrews College and minister at Christ Church in
Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has
written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A
Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. His Blog and
Mablog site inevitably makes for provocative reading.
Wilson will be corresponding with Christopher Hitchens, author of the new
book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything ( Twelve Books).
Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor
of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books,
including Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of
Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters. He was named,
to his own amusement, number five on a list of the "Top 100 Public
Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.
You'll enjoy the discussion regardless of whether you're already familiar
with Wilson and Hitchens. But if you are familiar with their work, you'll
know that it promises to be anything but boring.
by Gary DeMar
5/7/2007
The answer is simple. A lot simpler than most fundamentalists realize.

What kind of world do you want to live in?
Do you want to live in the kind of world where people steal, kill,
rape, and perform other atrocities?
No? Then don't do it, yourself.

Do you know what it feels like to be hurt by other people?
Would you wish that feeling on someone else?
No? Then try not to hurt other people.

Absolutely no god whatsoever is needed for a person to be moral. All
that is needed is empathy and egalitarianism. The realization that
other people have emotions too and the recognition that everyone has
the same rights.
So!
2007-07-28 20:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog? Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from? In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from? The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator. If there is no God but only
matter, why is anything right or wrong?
The debate over the existence of God has been a long one. The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1). American Vision has been on the front
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention. There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.
Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.
Next week, ABC's Nightline has Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.
No. Really. Nightline has tapped Kirk Cameron to be fidei defensor.
I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa Whelchel, Mr. T,
Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.
Instead, we'd rather hear from Douglas Wilson, author of the new book,
Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision). Wilson is senior fellow
of theology at New Saint Andrews College and minister at Christ Church in
Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has
written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A
Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. His Blog and
Mablog site inevitably makes for provocative reading.
Wilson will be corresponding with Christopher Hitchens, author of the new
book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything ( Twelve Books).
Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor
of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books,
including Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of
Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters. He was named,
to his own amusement, number five on a list of the "Top 100 Public
Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.
You'll enjoy the discussion regardless of whether you're already familiar
with Wilson and Hitchens. But if you are familiar with their work, you'll
know that it promises to be anything but boring.
by Gary DeMar
5/7/2007
The answer is simple. A lot simpler than most fundamentalists realize.
What kind of world do you want to live in?
Do you want to live in the kind of world where people steal, kill,
rape, and perform other atrocities?
No? Then don't do it, yourself.
DO you think you can obey all 10 of the Ten Commandments
on your own!? (-;

http://bibleweb.info/10.html

(Acts 12:20-23 NASB)

Death of Herod

20 Now he was very angry with the people of ?a?Tyre and Sidon;
and with one accord they came to him, and having won over Blastus the
king's chamberlain, they were asking for peace, because ?b?their
country was fed by the king's country.

21 On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel,
took his seat on the ?1?rostrum and began delivering an address to
them.

22 The people kept crying out, "The voice of a god and not of a
man!"

23 And immediately ?a?an angel of the Lord struck him because he
did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and ?1?died.

[1]

When we talk about giving God glory, people get very confused. Why are we
to give God glory? Is He insecure? Does He have a poor self-image? Does He
need us to gather together and tell Him how wonderful He is so He'll feel
better about Himself? No. God doesn't need us-but He does love us. And He
knows that, although He doesn't need our praise, we need to praise. He
knows it is in thanksgiving and in glorifying Him that we are de-wormed.
He knows that, like Herod, if we do not honor Him, worms will destroy us.

Following are three worms that will torment us, gnaw on us, and ultimately
devour us if we do not give God glory and thanksgiving continually.

The Worm of Anxiety

Paul wrote that in everything we are to give thanks to the Lord (Ephesians
5:20). Why? Because, as James wrote, every good and perfect gift comes
from above (1:17).

If I think the job I have, the house in which I live, the family I enjoy
are mine because I have worked hard and have been clever and diligent, I
will eventually be eaten up by the worm of anxiety because I will either
be worried about maintaining what I have or attaining what I don't. If I
say, "I have health because of my commitment to physical fitness, success
because of my business acumen, and a place on the baseball team because of
my athletic prowess," I will be consumed by worry because if I strived to
attain these things, I'll have to strive to maintain them.

If you believe you are where you are today because of your diligence, your
ability, your personality, or your creativity-you will be eaten up with
anxiety. On the other hand, if you believe every good gift comes from
above, you realize you neither earned nor deserve the blessings in your
life. And since you didn't work for them, since they are yours by God's
grace, you can trust in Him and give thanks to Him for where you are
today.

Then, if the job doesn't work out, if the relationship goes kaput, if you
get cut from the team, you can say, "Lord, You gave it to me in the first
place. And if you're taking it away from me now, then I know it's
ultimately for my good and your glory." And when you thank the Lord for
whatever situation you're in and give Him glory for everything you've
enjoyed, you'll be at peace-wonderful peace that passes understanding
(Philippians 4:7).

Miriam led the children of Israel in praise and worship as they danced and
celebrated after God miraculously parted the Red Sea (Exodus 15:20). But
do you recall what the children of Israel were doing before the Lord
parted the Sea? They were complaining and murmuring (Exodus 14:11, 12).
They were stressed out. They were uptight. They were eaten up. How much
better it would have been for the people to dance before the Lord and give
glory to Him before the Red Sea parted-while they were trapped and boxed
in by the Sea in front of them and the Egyptians behind them.

It's relatively easy to give thanks after the answer has come. But how
much better for your health, your faith, your witness, if you'll take up
the tambourine in faith before you see the Red Sea part-and watch the worm
of anxiety drown in the waters of praise!

The Worm of Perversity

Romans 1 gives us the pathway to perversion.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because
that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it
unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that,
when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful;
but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory
of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and
to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also
gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to
dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God
into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,
who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women
did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise
also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust
one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:18-27

When a man, a woman, or a society stops glorifying God and giving Him
thanks, perversion is the ultimate result. Oh, we might not make idols of
men and birds of wood and stone as they did in Paul's day-but we fashion
rock idols, Hollywood idols, and political idols. We might not worship
creeping things and four-footed animals anymore-but we teach our kids that
they came from primordial slime and evolved into monkeys.

We are surrounded in this country by perversity that leads to
homosexuality and God's judgment inevitably. And, according to Romans
1:21, it all began when we stopped giving God thanks. I'm so sorry about
our culture. I take responsibility for it and repent to the Lord
concerning it. Like Herod, our society is being devoured by the worm of
perversity because, as a nation, we refuse to glorify God.

The Worm of Negativity

A man or woman who does not continually give thanks in everything becomes
vulnerable to the worm of negativity. He or she will become grumpy,
grouchy, and cynical. The way to escape from the worm of negativity is to
give thanks to God continually.

In the late 1800s, when cotton was undisputed king of the South, every
cotton plantation in Coffee County, Alabama, was wiped out by the boll
weevil. The economic fallout was disastrous, causing the Christians in the
little town of Enterprise to meet together and pray, "We thank You, Lord,
that You have blessed us for so many years with cotton. Now it's gone, but
we know You work all things together for good. So we trust You."

Following their prayer meeting, the town of Enterprise decided to change
crops from cotton to peanuts. Now, although peanuts at that time were
virtually unknown, there was a man of exceptional intelligence-one of the
greatest thinkers in our country's history-who in the same year the folks
of Enterprise felt the Lord nudging them to plant peanuts, was also
talking to the Lord. A wonderful believer, with a deep interest in
astronomy, he prayed, "Father, teach me the secrets of the universe." Then
he hung his head and said, "Lord, I know that's too presumptuous to ask.
Just teach me about the peanut."

The man's name, of course, was George Washington Carver-and how the Lord
answered his prayer! Beginning in 1895, Carver developed over three
hundred products from the lowly peanut-of which the primary discovery, as
far as I'm concerned, was peanut butter! As a result of George Washington
Carver's discoveries, suddenly there was an unexpected, unprecedented
demand for peanuts. And Coffee County began to prosper beyond belief. What
had been a disaster became a blessing. What had been adversity became
prosperity-all because instead of being eaten up by the worm of
negativity, the people of Enterprise glorified God.

If you go to Enterprise today, you will see a monument in the town square
with a boll weevil on top and this inscription underneath:

In profound appreciation for the boll weevil and what he has done as the
herald of prosperity, this monument is erected by the grateful citizens of
Coffee County, Alabama. All things work together for good (see Romans
8:28).

The Scriptures proclaim that pride goes before a fall. "Your sin will find
you out" (Numbers 32:23 nlt); "Pride goes before destruction." (Proverbs
16:18 nlt); "You will always reap what you sow!" (Galatians 6:7 nlt). By
foolishly setting himself against God and refusing to give him glory,
Herod guaranteed his own disastrous demise: he was "consumed with worms"
(12:23 nlt).[2]

PRIDE BEFORE THE FALL

For political advantage, Herod Agrippa I had killed James, imprisoned
Peter, and persecuted the Christians (12:1-4). Because religion was
important to Herod only as an aspect of politics, he had no reverence for
God and no qualms about receiving praise that only God should have. God
hates arrogance and pride (see 1 Samuel 15:23; Proverbs 8:13; Isaiah
13:11). This event demonstrates that judgment belongs to God; he will
judge those who defy him. Don't let your position or accomplishments make
you proud. Pride can shut you off from the truth and lead you away from
God.

[3]

"The pride of man had ended in the wrath of God."5 13[4]

Gang, you and I can be de-wormed by giving God glory. May He give us
wisdom and application. And may this be the most un-wormy congregation in
the whole country!

[5]

Those who set themselves against God are doomed to ultimate failure.[6]

In the End: (Acts 12:24 NASB)

24 But ?a?the word of the Lord continued to grow and to be
multiplied. [7]

God's Words Stands Forever!

UNSTOPPABLE

Try as they might to stop the spread of the gospel, the enemies of God
could only sit by and watch more and more people put their faith in
Christ. The church was a juggernaut, guided and energized by almighty God.
The same is true today. Nothing-no government, no law, no evil leader, no
amount of persecution-can stop God from adding to his church.

[8]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ----

a Matt 11:21 b 1 Kin 5:11; Ezra 3:7; Ezek 27:17 1 Or judgment seat a 2 Sam
24:16; 2 Kin 19:35; Acts 5:19 1 Lit breathed his last breath

[1]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 12:20). LaHabra,
CA: The Lockman Foundation. nlt Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken
from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996. Used by
permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All
rights reserved.

[2]Barton, B. B., & Osborne, G. R. (1999). Acts. Life application Bible
commentary (210). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

[3]Barton, B. B., & Osborne, G. R. (1999). Acts. Life application Bible
commentary (211). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

513 513. Barclay, p. 103.

[4]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the
Bible (Ac 12:21). Galaxie Software.

[5]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (714).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

[6]Barton, B. B., & Osborne, G. R. (1999). Acts. Life application Bible
commentary (211). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

a Acts 6:7; 19:20

[7]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 12:24). LaHabra,
CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[8]Barton, B. B., & Osborne, G. R. (1999). Acts. Life application Bible
commentary (212). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.
Conspiracy of Doves
2007-07-28 21:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by So!
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog? Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from? In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from? The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator. If there is no God but only
matter, why is anything right or wrong?
The debate over the existence of God has been a long one. The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1). American Vision has been on the front
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention. There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.
Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.
Next week, ABC's Nightline has Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.
No. Really. Nightline has tapped Kirk Cameron to be fidei defensor.
I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa Whelchel, Mr. T,
Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.
Instead, we'd rather hear from Douglas Wilson, author of the new book,
Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision). Wilson is senior fellow
of theology at New Saint Andrews College and minister at Christ Church in
Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has
written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A
Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. His Blog and
Mablog site inevitably makes for provocative reading.
Wilson will be corresponding with Christopher Hitchens, author of the new
book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything ( Twelve Books).
Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor
of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books,
including Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of
Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters. He was named,
to his own amusement, number five on a list of the "Top 100 Public
Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.
You'll enjoy the discussion regardless of whether you're already familiar
with Wilson and Hitchens. But if you are familiar with their work, you'll
know that it promises to be anything but boring.
by Gary DeMar
5/7/2007
The answer is simple. A lot simpler than most fundamentalists realize.
What kind of world do you want to live in?
Do you want to live in the kind of world where people steal, kill,
rape, and perform other atrocities?
No? Then don't do it, yourself.
DO you think you can obey all 10 of the Ten Commandments
on your own!? (-;
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.

Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.

There doesn't even need to be a set of rules. As long as you have
empathy for other people and recognize that you are not more important
than anyone else, you can figure out for yourself what to do (or at
least what not to do) in most situations.
RU Liken IT Yet!
2007-07-29 01:28:18 UTC
Permalink
"Conspiracy of Doves" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

. A Crisis of Credibility

John grew up in a home where his parents sporadically attended church.
They rarely attend any services today. Twenty years ago, his sister
married a Muslim and embraced Islamic religious beliefs. Then about ten
years ago, John was introduced to Jesus Christ and received Him as his
Savior and Lord. That decision changed his life, and he is living a
vibrant Christian life today.

In a recent conversation with his mother, he made a comment about his
sister not being a Christian. "She's not?" his mother exclaimed,
flabbergasted. Despite her daughter's obvious Islamic beliefs, she had
assumed that everyone born in America was by default a "Christian."

John's mother is not alone in her assumptions. In The Index of Leading
Spiritual Indicators, a report on the condition of America's soul,
pollster George Barna concludes, "While traditional-some would say
biblical-Christianity is certainly on the decline, most Americans continue
to think of themselves as Christian individuals residing in a Christian
nation."1 But considering the degraded condition of society today, that
may be the most dangerous assumption we could make. We have retained just
enough Christianity to prevent us from seeing how spiritually bankrupt we
really are.

What are the underlying causes that have cost us our holiness and
propelled us into materialism and lukewarmness? Although this list is not
conclusive, we would like to examine seven reasons why the American Church
and the majority of believers have lost their vibrant faith.

1. We are not really committed to Christ personally.

A few years ago, a major polling organization reported that there were 60
million born-again Christians in America. But a writer for the Wall Street
Journal took issue with the findings by asking these questions:

If this is true, why is America ravaged by crime, violence and an epidemic
of just about every problem known to man? Are not people of faith supposed
to make a difference in society? If it is true that so many Americans are
believers in Jesus Christ, then why are we in this pitiful condition?
Where is the godly influence of all those people on our morally bankrupt
society? Where is their understanding of God's holiness and His command
that we be holy too? Has our "salt" lost its effectiveness? Has our
"light" gone out in this dark world?

The answer lies partly in the fact that many who call themselves
Christians are really not biblical Christians at all. Although they may be
religious people who attend church regularly, they have never experienced
the new birth and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Also, many
so-called Christians are living worldly (carnal) lives. Appetites and
desires of human nature influence, if not control, their behavior. They
have no conception of what holiness means.

The Bible says that our evidence of faith is vital. John writes:

How can we be sure that we belong to [Christ]? By looking within
ourselves: are we really trying to do what he wants us to? Someone may
say, "I am a Christian; I am on my way to heaven; I belong to Christ." But
if he doesn't do what Christ tells him to, he is a liar. But those who do
what Christ tells them to will learn to love God more and more. That is
the way to know whether or not you are a Christian. Anyone who says he is
a Christian should live as Christ did (1 John 2:3-6, TLB).

Many who claim to be Christians give no evidence of the presence of Christ
in their lives. Their lives are not different from those of the
unbelieving masses, and the hypocrisy and compromise they exhibit as
professing Christians leave a bad taste in the mouth of society. They are
just spiritually minded pagans, struggling to survive in a world of sin.
This waters down the influence of the Church on our society.

2. We do not respect God.

In my recent book, The Coming Revival, I wrote about the condition of the
Church in America and the prospects for spiritual awakening. One
particular issue I touched on is my concern that so many Christians seem
to have lost their fear or respect of God, especially His holiness. I am
sure you have heard people call God the "man upstairs," a "buddy," or the
great "cosmic force."

These statements show that many people do not understand the nature of our
awesome God or His love, grace, wisdom, power, and sovereignty. Some
consider God as a genial "grandfather" who would never judge anyone. His
job is to pull us out of the messes we get into and stroke us by treating
our sins as "mistakes." They trivialize God's justice and abhorrence of
sin.

Many who claim to be Christians give NO EVIDENCE of the presence of Christ
in their lives.

Other Christians have a view of God as "out there somewhere." They do not
realize that God is personable, active, and available to them and that the
Bible teaches we can have an intimate relationship with God. These church
attenders have only a limited awareness of the riches of knowing our
heavenly Father and appropriating His righteousness through Jesus Christ.
These people never experience God's presence in their day-to-day
activities or the joy of seeing His plan unfold in their lives.

Because they do not have an intimate relationship with God, they do not
experience the power of His Holy Spirit to teach them God's Word, resist
temptation, or live consistent, godly lives. They never witness or become
spiritual leaders in their homes or communities.

3. We have changed or ignored biblical truth.

One of our Campus Crusade for Christ staff members relayed his experience
while speaking at one of the more than 800 churches in the Orlando area.
At the end of his remarks, he read through our tract, The Four Spiritual
Laws. Afterwards, he simply asked how many in the congregation would like
to receive Christ for the first time. Twenty-one people raised their
hands. Next he asked how many were trying to live the supernatural life in
their own human efforts but would like to be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Twenty-six people raised their hands. At the conclusion of the service,
sixteen people settled the issue of assurance of salvation. Praise the
Lord for this response on the part of those who are sincerely hungry for
God. But I ask you: What is wrong with this picture? So many Christians in
this congregation had no foundation in the basic, practical principles of
the New Testament.

Many of our congregations are so lacking in the knowledge of God's Word
that they are susceptible to all kinds of errors. Some have strayed so far
from the truth that they are not really New Testament believers in their
beliefs and practices. As George Barna warns, "Much of American
Christianity is nominal in nature. Americans like to have a term to
summarize their religiosity, and 'Christian' remains the label of choice,
even if their commitment to biblical Christianity is waning."2

Os Guinness believes that the level of sincere faith in America is so
small that many Christians, for all intents and purposes, are "practical
atheists." They claim to believe in Jesus Christ, but He is not a factor
in their lives. They use religious language and they still go through the
motions, but they have discarded many of the most fundamental tenets of
Christianity. Guinness argues, "There are a number of great biblical
categories which are negative and vital-worldliness, sin, judgment,
heresy-they have almost all corroded now."3 Much of this results from a
lack of understanding what the Bible says or from misrepresenting God's
message.

One of the most serious threats to the authority of believing faith is the
new blend of Christianity and humanism that is flooding into many of our
churches. This social gospel focuses on man's power, man's authority,
man's inner goodness. It bears little resemblance to true biblical
Christianity.

Another threat comes from the fact that the pure gospel is not being
preached from thousands of pulpits. These pastors do not have an accurate
understanding of the depths of God's Word and the dangers of distorting
even one word of it. Instead, too many pastors rely on their own intellect
instead of simply preaching the infallible, authoritative Word of God. As
a result, they propagate a watered-down faith that offers little
consolation and few meaningful answers. They tread lightly past the
fundamentals, handing out a sugar-coated version of faith to men and women
whose souls are in eternal jeopardy. Such preachers are so afraid of
appearing dogmatic or legalistic that they compromise the life-saving
power of God's Word and rely on entertainment and humor to engage their
people. Entertainment and humor from the pulpit are encouraging at times,
but will not prepare the Church to engage the secular culture, to clearly
defend what they believe, and to know why they believe it.

Charles Finney, the evangelist whose powerful sermons helped spark the
Second Great Awakening, led a revival that touched every region of the
nation and helped cleanse the hearts of millions of Americans on the eve
of the Civil War. Under Finney's preaching, thousands came to genuine
faith in Christ. Finney knew how to spread the gospel, but he also knew
how not to spread the gospel. In a brief essay entitled "How to Preach So
As to Convert Nobody," Finney offered the following prescription:

Let your supreme motivation be popularity rather than salvation. Study to
please your congregation and to make a reputation rather than to please
God. Take up popular, passing, and sensational themes to draw the crowd,
and avoid the essential doctrines of salvation. Denounce sin in the
abstract, but pass lightly over sins that prevail in your congregation.
Preach on the loveliness of virtue and the glory of heaven, but not on the
sinfulness of sin. Reprove the sins of the absent, but make those present
pleased with themselves, so that they will enjoy the sermon and not go
away with their feelings hurt. Make the impression on the worldly church
members that God is too good to send anyone to hell, even if there is a
hell. Preach the universal Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man so as
to show that no second birth is really needed.4

How tragic that his prescription, written as an ironic statement, is being
taken at face value in many American churches today.

In addition, an entire genre of self-help, do-it-yourself books has
flooded the Christian market. Emulating the therapy environment of the
secular world, they take the focus off God's wisdom and power. These
products appeal to those who think that the Word of God and the power of
the Holy Spirit are insufficient to cope with the problems of our daily
lives and that we need to rely on do-it-yourself pop psychology.
Psychology may offer insights into human behavior, but, tragically, it can
never break the bondage of sin or provide the wisdom of God's Word.

The spreading of weak or misapplied theology has wreaked havoc on what
American Christians believe and know. According to one recent survey, 50
percent of the more than one hundred million who attend church on a
typical Sunday do not have any assurance of salvation. Ninety-five percent
of church-goers say they are not familiar with the person and ministry of
the Holy Spirit. Less than two percent of believers in this country ever
share their faith in Christ with others.5 It seems there is no area of
biblical truth that has not been neglected.

Psychology can never break the BONDAGE OF SIN or provide the WISDOM or
God's Word.

To give an example of how ideas have drifted away from biblical truth, we
can look at what many Americans believe about sin. Sin, says Guinness, is
an area where theology, influenced by modern science, has replaced
biblical Christianity with what amounts to a counterfeit faith. "We see
large parts of the American church for whom sin has been reduced from
theology, to crime, to psychology, and it has become a form of low
self-esteem. Imagine our Puritan ancestors believing that sin was the hole
in the soul of self-esteem. Yet many modern Americans have one of the most
trivial, sentimentalized views of sin that the church has seen in 2000
years."6

In their efforts to not offend anyone, many of our churches have ceased
dealing with sin at all. A majority of Christians have discarded the
doctrine of original sin in favor of their manmade faith in the basic
goodness of mankind.

We cannot build a Church that can spread God's message throughout the
world if our people do not know that message. We cannot disciple others to
live Spirit-filled lives if we do not know how to let Christ's Spirit
express Himself fully through our own lives. Our very mission as a nation
depends on our commitment to biblical truth.

4. We have misrepresented the Christian life.

In the more than fifty years that I have walked with Christ, I have found
that His yoke is easy and His burden light-as long as I walk in the Spirit
and not in my flesh. When I daily confess my sins and appropriate by faith
the fullness and power of the Holy Spirit, He gives me strength for the
journey. I cannot live a victorious, fruitful life in my own strength.
Victory is assured only as I abide in Him and His Word abides in me moment
by moment (John 15:7).

But this victory does not mean that I do not experience difficult trials
and testing. As long as we are on this earth, these ordeals will afflict
us. How we handle them proves the Lord's presence in our lives and
demonstrates our faith to those who do not believe.

Yet some Christians believe that when a person receives Christ and has
enough faith, he will not experience trials and that hardships such as ill
health or financial difficulties are a result of insufficient faith. Many
preachers mention only the benefits of the Christian life without
addressing the necessary disciplines, the trials, and temptations we will
endure. With our culture's emphasis on owning earthly possessions and
living the good life, these pastors are fearful of acknowledging the
biblical facts about the testing the apostles experienced for their faith.
Should we expect anything less in our own lives? The Bible tells us
clearly that all believers will undergo difficulties, trials, and tests.

A belief that Christians are entitled to the "good life" can result in
demoralized church members. Expecting the Christian life to be a bed of
roses can be very discouraging to new believers-and to more mature ones as
well-when they are jostled by the storms of life. Billy Graham says:

No life is without its own set of problems. When I decided to give my life
to Christ as a young man, it was not because I believed He would take away
all my pain. No, I trusted Him because He promised me eternal life, and I
believed He would always be with me and give me the strength to cope with
the difficulties of life.

We all have to endure storms in our lives. When any preacher oversells
either the material or spiritual benefits of the Christian life, I believe
he is contributing to the work of the horseman [of the Apocalypse] who
deceives. There is nothing on earth to compare with the new life in Jesus
Christ, but it will not always be easy.7

Jesus calls us to follow Him regardless of the cost. He never promises
that our path will always be smooth, but that He will be with us enabling
us to endure each situation. Billy Graham offers a strong warning to those
who may be tempted to distort the facts about the difficulties of the
Christian life:

When we tell only the stories of victory, we tell only a part of the
truth. When we recount only the answered prayers, we oversimplify. When we
imply that the Christian faith involves no yoke and no burden, we tell
less than the whole truth.8

5. We are not consistent in our walk with God.

Christians who are content to live soft, materialistic lives do not have
the stamina to walk a consistent Christian life. They take shortcuts to
spirituality, neglect the disciplines of their faith, and choose the easy
way out when temptation strikes. This is reflected in their weak
commitment to their churches.

In a recent survey, Barna found that 87 percent of Americans-nearly nine
out of ten-say that religious faith is either "important" or "very
important" to them. Yet despite the high numbers, church attendance has
fallen to the lowest levels in more than a decade. While more than two
thirds of Americans claim to be Christians, only 37 percent attend church
on a regular basis. Among those, only 31 percent of Baby Boomers (age
31-52) and 34 percent of Baby Busters (age 18-34) attend services in any
given week. That is a drop of more than 15 percent since 1981.9

In their daily lives, many Christians have become experts at keeping their
spiritual lives separate from their secular lives. Young believers go to
school and put on their student hats; their parents go to work and don
their worker's caps; then they go to church on Sunday and put on their
Christian hats. It is dangerous and unscriptural to compartmentalize our
lives. I am convinced this is one of the major reasons why America is on
the verge of moral and spiritual collapse.

The message of God's Word and the premise of Campus Crusade for Christ is
that all believers are called to proclaim Christ boldly in every area of
our society. Rather than merely working to add more believers in the
various segments of society, we need those who know Christ right now to
live consistent, Spirit-filled lives in every sphere of society. One
essential part of a consistent spiritual walk is to witness to Christ's
love wherever we are. Colossians 1:28 urges, "Everywhere we go we talk
about Christ to all who will listen, warning them and teaching them as
well as we know how. We want to be able to present each one to God,
perfect because of what Christ has done for each of them" (TLB). This
verse tells us that we are called to be full-time followers and full-time
witnesses of God's love. Paul calls this our ministry of reconciliation:
"All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and
gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world
to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them" (2 Corinthians
5:18, 19).

Many Christians have become experts at keeping their SPIRITUAL LIVES
SEPARATE from their secular lives.

God places us where we are to serve Him in all things. We cannot segment
our lives into God's portion and the world's portion. We must do our part,
no matter where He places us, and no matter how great or how small our
gifts and opportunities. We are ministers on the job, in the home, at the
church, and on the street.

When we are walking with the Lord daily and living in the Holy Spirit's
power, it is not difficult to find the mission fields in our lives.
Friends, family, co-workers, employers, neighbors, or sackers at the
grocery store need a Savior. Until believers let Christ live the Christian
life through them wherever they go and in whatever they do, we will not
have an impact on our society.

6. We do not stand up for our faith.

At various times and places throughout history, God has sent special
ambassadors to change the world. We recognize some of the more famous
names. I think immediately of individuals like Martin Luther, John Knox,
John Wesley, William Wilberforce, and George Whitefield, who bore words of
passion and renewal. There were some, such as Winston Churchill, who spoke
of duty, honor, and country in times of world crisis. Another is Mother
Teresa of Calcutta, who spoke for all those who were suffering and could
not speak for themselves. Other faithful Christians impacted the world in
less conspicuous, but no less important ways.

Could any of these brave souls have avoided their calling from God?
Absolutely. Could the world have continued without them? Probably, but not
nearly so well. Can America's mission continue if you and I fail to live
up to God's calling upon our lives? That is a question every one of us
must answer.

Several years ago, I met two of America's most outstanding educators. They
are both believers, both wonderful men. They had known each other for more
than twenty-five years. They met frequently at various educators'
conferences around the country, but neither knew that the other was a
Christian. They were closet Christians. Tragically, there are millions
like them in the closets of America.

Distinguished philosopher Edmund Burke reminds us, "The only thing
necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."10 Our
nation's modern humanistic laws and our corrupt justice system did not
just come about without a response from God. I believe that God had people
in places of authority who could have halted America's slide into
relativism, sin, and national decay; but they turned a deaf ear to the
Lord's commands. They did not do their part for the kingdom of God-and the
rest, I am sorry to say, is history.

I wonder how many Christian lawyers, placed in influential positions at
important turning points in history, failed to speak the truth or to stand
for righteousness when it really mattered? How many congressmen refused to
denounce an immoral bill? How many pastors have denied the prompting of
the Holy Spirit through that still, small voice and refused to speak those
words of conviction that might have called a wounded congregation back to
repentance? How many men and women will spend eternity in hell because no
one had the courage to speak a brief word to them about the love of Jesus
Christ?

We used to speak with pride of the so-called "silent majority"-supposedly
a vast body of believers who formed the invisible backbone of the nation.
Sadly, as we approach the new millennium, we have been silent too long. In
our fear of controversy, we allowed those who disagree with our values and
the principles of Christian culture to dismantle the proudest and noblest
landmarks of our heritage.

Francis Schaeffer questions where the clear voice speaking to the critical
issues of the day has gone. Where are the men and women of conviction who
have knowledge and skill to offer biblical answers to the problems we are
facing? "The last fifty years," he laments, "have given birth to a moral
disaster, and what have we done?"

The lack of boldness in the body of Christ is part of the problem. Our
responses to what is happening in the culture are generally appalling.
Schaeffer says, "With tears we must say that . a large segment of the
evangelical world has become seduced by the world spirit of this present
age."11

As we saw, God looks at the world from the perspective of reconciliation.
He alone could have reconciled man to Himself, but He chose to give us the
privilege of reconciling the world to Him. Paul writes, "We are therefore
Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us" (2
Corinthians 5:20). Peter reminds us that God is not willing that any
should perish, but that all should come to Christ in repentance (2 Peter
3:9).

Most believers are missing the very mission that God has given them. They
may be active in the church a couple of days each week, but neglect the
needs of those who surround them the other five days. Why do we withhold
the matchless offer of salvation Christ has made available through us? We
do not stand up for our faith because of embarrassment, lack of knowledge,
and our intimidation by the cultural hostility to Christ and His gospel.
We have become ambassadors without a portfolio, soldiers without a
mission, and runners who sit out the race. We are reluctant warriors,
unprepared to carry our banner or fight the good fight. And we cannot win
the war without fighting a battle!

7. We are not willing to suffer.

So what are we to conclude about the lukewarm faith in America? Jesus told
the faithful that they would be hated and abused by the world. He said,
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you
belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not
belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why
the world hates you" (John 15:18, 19).

God did not offer us salvation just to take away our trials and give us
carefree and happy lives. Joy is the by-product of a one-on-one intimate
relationship with Jesus Christ, but happiness and prosperity were never
meant to be our primary pursuits. C. S. Lewis makes the point very well
when he says,

The Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable
comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in dismay . and it is
no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through
that dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the
one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may
find comfort in the end: If you look for comfort you will not get either
comfort or truth-only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in
the end, despair.12

Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. It was a painful, wretched,
and humiliating way to die. The Roman soldiers pounded spikes through His
wrists and ankles. He was beaten with whips. He was spat on. His torture
was anything but humane, and His death was anything but peaceful. The
thieves crucified on either side of Him had robbed and stolen their entire
lives; their deaths were perhaps justifiable. But the sinless Son of God
did nothing to deserve punishment, and crucifixion was the most
humiliating, excruciating death imaginable.

How many of us have ever suffered humiliation and torture for the gospel?
How many have stood up to jeers and mockery for the cause of Christ? How
many have been inconvenienced even a little? Sadly, not many.

Would you be willing to suffer for the truth if it would cost you your
savings, pension, or your home? Would you stand by your faith if that
meant losing your job or enduring physical pain? I know these are tough
questions; but many who went before us suffered and died by those choices.
Paul's life was filled with disappointment, pain, suffering, and
eventually martyrdom. Yet because of his complete submission to God, he
had an intimacy with the Lord that we can only imagine. Our forefathers
stood against popular beliefs to serve Christ, and they experienced a
vibrant faith that most of us will never know.

Would YOU be willing to suffer for the truth IF IT WOULD COST YOU your
savings, pension, or your home?

In many places around the world today, Christians are humiliated, beaten,
tortured, and murdered for simply attending a church service, carrying a
Bible, or speaking about Jesus to a nonbeliever. Are we less able than
they are to carry out our mission with a bold faith that is willing to
suffer all for Christ? Only as we are willing to lay down our will to do
the will of the Father can we experience the power of God working through
us to impact the world with the gospel. That is the only way we can
confront our culture and win!

One researcher writes, "The major change for the church in America is that
she has forgotten her identity in relation to the world. We have abandoned
our unique identity and have pursued another identity, that of a cultural
Christian. When the church loses her identity, she also loses her sense of
purpose or destiny; without identity and purpose she has no power."13 At
this critical hour, I believe we are standing on the threshold of the
greatest opportunity in 2,000 years to impact our world and help fulfill
the Great Commission. Sadly, at the moment when the world needs us the
most, too many Christians are uncommitted, powerless, and caught in the
grasp of worldliness and selfishness.

I urge you to consider your part in making the bride of Christ clean and
spotless, ready to present herself to the Bridegroom. The next chapter
will examine what the Church can do to turn the tide of unrighteousness,
materialism, and lukewarmness that is thwarting our ability to confront
the culture-and help make this a Christian nation once again.

[1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 George Barna, The Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators, (Dallas: Word
Publishing, 1996), p. 118.

2 Barna, Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators, p. 4.

3 Dr. Os Guinness interview by John N. Damoose in Fairfax, Virginia, in
1996.

4 Louis Parkhurst, Jr., ed., Principles of Victory, (Minneapolis: Bethany
House, 1981) p. 13.

5 Bill Bright, The Coming Revival, (Orlando, FL: NewLife Publications,
1995), p. 65.

6 Guinness interview.

7 Dr. Billy Graham, Storm Warning, (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1992), p. 28.

8 Graham, Storm Warning, p. 28.

9 Barna, Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators, p. 1.

10 Edmund Burke, quoted in John Bartlett, ed., Bartlett's Familiar
Quotations, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980), p. 332.

11 Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books, 1984), p. 141.

12 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York; Macmillan, 1952) p. 39.

13 Eric Johnson, Say You Want a Revolution, (DeBary, FL: Longwood
Communications, 1994), p. 339.

[1]Bright, B., & Damoose, J. N. (1998). Red sky in the morning (211).
Orlando, Fla.: New Life Publications.
Conspiracy of Doves
2007-07-30 03:38:48 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 28, 9:28 pm, "RU Liken IT Yet!"
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
. A Crisis of Credibility
Ok, what does ANY of this have to do with what I posted? No, I'm not
going to read that entire book. If you have a point to make, summarize
it.
Spirit of pro wrestling
2007-08-24 12:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Post by So!
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog? Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the argument.
My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon me." Where does this rule come from? In a universe that
supposedly came into existence by chance from the accidental collection of
atoms, where do "rights" and "self-determination" come from? The
Declaration of Independence accounts for such things by asserting that
they are an endowment from the Creator. If there is no God but only
matter, why is anything right or wrong?
The debate over the existence of God has been a long one. The Bible
acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence. Such a person
is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1). American Vision has been on the front
Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson and The Return of the
Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon. Both have gotten some attention. There
will be an online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens,
author of God is Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today.
Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.
Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.
Next week, ABC's Nightline hasKirk Cameronand Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.
No. Really. Nightline has tappedKirk Cameronto be fidei defensor.
I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa Whelchel, Mr. T,
Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.
Instead, we'd rather hear from Douglas Wilson, author of the new book,
Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision). Wilson is senior fellow
of theology at New Saint Andrews College and minister at Christ Church in
Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has
written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A
Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. His Blog and
Mablog site inevitably makes for provocative reading.
Wilson will be corresponding with Christopher Hitchens, author of the new
book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything ( Twelve Books).
Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor
of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books,
including Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of
Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters. He was named,
to his own amusement, number five on a list of the "Top 100 Public
Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.
You'll enjoy the discussion regardless of whether you're already familiar
with Wilson and Hitchens. But if you are familiar with their work, you'll
know that it promises to be anything but boring.
by Gary DeMar
5/7/2007
The answer is simple. A lot simpler than most fundamentalists realize.
What kind of world do you want to live in?
Do you want to live in the kind of world where people steal, kill,
rape, and perform other atrocities?
No? Then don't do it, yourself.
DO you think you can obey all 10 of the Ten Commandments
on your own!? (-;
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
2007-08-24 12:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
<SMACK> Shut the fuck up asshat. No one believes a word you post.

- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz

A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/

Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
St. Jackanapes
2007-08-24 13:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Rev. Karl E. Taylor held us spellbound with...
Post by Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
<SMACK> Shut the fuck up asshat. No one believes a word you post.
Is that neurologically deformed liar still coming back here trying to
make us believe his laughable attempts at fibs, fiction, and fish
stories? What is he now? A Colonel in the Canadian Space Command during
WW2 1/2?

His neurological disorder, Asperger?s Syndrome, make him have difficulty
understanding what those around them think and feel. As a result of
this, they often behave inappropriately in social situations. Like
pathological lying. This manifests itself as a notable lack of ?common
sense?.

Persons with AS show marked deficiencies in social skills, have
difficulties with transitions or changes and prefer sameness. They often
have obsessive routines and may be preoccupied with a particular subject
of interest. Like popping in here every so often and telling the same
lies over and over, even though every lie has been exposed.

They can often focus on small details and fail to see the overall
picture of what is happening in any situation.

If the idiot with Aspergers Syndrome has a good level of spoken language
you must not assume their understanding is at the same level. Some talk
incessantly (hyperverbal) often on a topic of interest only to
themselves without knowing the boredom of the listener. Difficulties in
using the right words or forming conversations is part of semantic-
pragmatic difficulties. They appear often to talk 'at' rather than 'to'
you, giving information rather that holding proper conversations.

That last bit explains Asshat's posting style quite accurately.

(Some of the above info came from http://artzoo.com/health/autism.htm)
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
============================


neurological disorder
Spirit of pro wrestling
2007-08-25 23:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by St. Jackanapes
Rev. Karl E. Taylor held us spellbound with...
Post by Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
<SMACK> Shut the fuck up asshat. No one believes a word you post.
Is that neurologically deformed liar still coming back here trying to
make us believe his laughable attempts at fibs, fiction, and fish
stories? What is he now?
DEpends on what my myspace page says.
Smiler
2007-08-26 03:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by St. Jackanapes
Rev. Karl E. Taylor held us spellbound with...
Post by Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
<SMACK> Shut the fuck up asshat. No one believes a word you post.
Is that neurologically deformed liar still coming back here trying to
make us believe his laughable attempts at fibs, fiction, and fish
stories? What is he now?
DEpends on what my myspace page says.
More lies.

Smiler,
The godless one
St. Jackanapes
2007-08-26 04:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Smiler held us spellbound with...
Post by Smiler
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by St. Jackanapes
Rev. Karl E. Taylor held us spellbound with...
Post by Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
<SMACK> Shut the fuck up asshat. No one believes a word you post.
Is that neurologically deformed liar still coming back here trying to
make us believe his laughable attempts at fibs, fiction, and fish
stories? What is he now?
DEpends on what my myspace page says.
More lies.
All lies, all day, all night. Chris Assaf's World of Lies.
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
============================
"I like your Christ.
I do not like your Christians.
They are so unlike your Christ" - Ghandi
St. Jackanapes
2007-08-26 04:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Spirit of pro wrestling held us spellbound with...
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by St. Jackanapes
Rev. Karl E. Taylor held us spellbound with...
Post by Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
<SMACK> Shut the fuck up asshat. No one believes a word you post.
Is that neurologically deformed liar still coming back here trying to
make us believe his laughable attempts at fibs, fiction, and fish
stories? What is he now?
DEpends on what my myspace page says.
Which is nothing more than an extension of your Asbergers-driven
obsessive fantasies. Face it, Forrest Gump at least had the mental
equipment to function in the real world, and make something of himself.
Unlike Forrest, all you do is sit in your fairyland and dream up
exploits in the Canadian Army or of being a corrections officer - oh
wait, first you were just a volunteer to the police department then in a
couple of weeks you became secretary to a homicide squad, then you
suddenly became a secretary to a corrections department in a Canadian
prison, before long you were a guard! And that's just the short list of
your career that comes to mind as I sit here.

To coin a phrase, you've got more shit than a Christmas turkey, Chris.
Is your little life so boring and dull that you have to invent these
fantasy lives to lead? And do you need to share them with us just to
give these constructs legitimacy?

Why, Chris Assaf, why? Does your mother and your psychiatrist know about
your Usenet fantasies?
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
============================
"I like your Christ.
I do not like your Christians.
They are so unlike your Christ" - Ghandi
yowie
2007-08-26 04:36:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:15:03 -0400, St.Jackanapes wrote:

...
Post by St. Jackanapes
Why, Chris Assaf, why? Does your mother and your psychiatrist know about
your Usenet fantasies?
His hippy mother committed suicide shortly before his 7th birthday - just
after she murdered his shrink for but-fucking little 'Chris' out in the
garage.
St. Jackanapes
2007-08-27 02:45:09 UTC
Permalink
yowie held us spellbound with...
Post by yowie
...
Post by St. Jackanapes
Why, Chris Assaf, why? Does your mother and your psychiatrist know about
your Usenet fantasies?
His hippy mother committed suicide shortly before his 7th birthday - just
after she murdered his shrink for but-fucking little 'Chris' out in the
garage.
But he was just trying to teach poor little autistic Chrissy the "ins
and outs" of life.
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
============================
"I like your Christ.
I do not like your Christians.
They are so unlike your Christ" - Ghandi
Irv Hyatt
2007-08-27 03:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by St. Jackanapes
yowie held us spellbound with...
Post by yowie
...
Post by St. Jackanapes
Why, Chris Assaf, why? Does your mother and your psychiatrist know about
your Usenet fantasies?
His hippy mother committed suicide shortly before his 7th birthday - just
after she murdered his shrink for but-fucking little 'Chris' out in the
garage.
But he was just trying to teach poor little autistic Chrissy the "ins
and outs" of life.
I don't think In 'n' Out is kosher either.
Post by St. Jackanapes
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
============================
"I like your Christ.
I do not like your Christians.
They are so unlike your Christ" - Ghandi
Father Haskell
2007-08-27 03:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irv Hyatt
Post by St. Jackanapes
yowie held us spellbound with...
Post by yowie
...
Post by St. Jackanapes
Why, Chris Assaf, why? Does your mother and your psychiatrist know about
your Usenet fantasies?
His hippy mother committed suicide shortly before his 7th birthday - just
after she murdered his shrink for but-fucking little 'Chris' out in the
garage.
But he was just trying to teach poor little autistic Chrissy the "ins
and outs" of life.
I don't think In 'n' Out is kosher either.
It is if the shrink used margarine.
Velvet Elvis
2007-08-27 19:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irv Hyatt
Post by St. Jackanapes
yowie held us spellbound with...
Post by yowie
...
Post by St. Jackanapes
Why, Chris Assaf, why? Does your mother and your psychiatrist know about
your Usenet fantasies?
His hippy mother committed suicide shortly before his 7th birthday - just
after she murdered his shrink for but-fucking little 'Chris' out in the
garage.
But he was just trying to teach poor little autistic Chrissy the "ins
and outs" of life.
I don't think In 'n' Out is kosher either.
It's OK if you don't eat it.
Irv Hyatt
2007-08-27 19:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Velvet Elvis
Post by Irv Hyatt
Post by St. Jackanapes
yowie held us spellbound with...
Post by yowie
...
Post by St. Jackanapes
Why, Chris Assaf, why? Does your mother and your psychiatrist know about
your Usenet fantasies?
His hippy mother committed suicide shortly before his 7th birthday - just
after she murdered his shrink for but-fucking little 'Chris' out in the
garage.
But he was just trying to teach poor little autistic Chrissy the "ins
and outs" of life.
I don't think In 'n' Out is kosher either.
It's OK if you don't eat it.
Those are the best burgers we have... yum... grilled fresh, nothing like a
double-double cheese.
Richard Catto
2007-08-26 14:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by St. Jackanapes
Forrest Gump at least had the mental
equipment to function in the real world, and make something of himself.
What real world? Gump wasn't a true story. Did you actually believe
that?

LULZ!
Post by St. Jackanapes
Unlike Forrest, all you do is sit in your fairyland and dream up
exploits in the Canadian Army or of being a corrections officer - oh
wait, first you were just a volunteer to the police department then in a
couple of weeks you became secretary to a homicide squad, then you
suddenly became a secretary to a corrections department in a Canadian
prison, before long you were a guard! And that's just the short list of
your career that comes to mind as I sit here.
Your career so far:

Take drugs.

That's it.

Impressive.
Post by St. Jackanapes
To coin a phrase, you've got more shit than a Christmas turkey.
LULZ!

You're a moron.
Post by St. Jackanapes
Is your little life so boring and dull that you have to invent these
fantasy lives to lead?
Your life is so fucked up, it's not worth mentioning.

You're brainless.
Post by St. Jackanapes
And do you need to share them with us just to
give these constructs legitimacy?
Quit eating your play dough. It contains lead.
Post by St. Jackanapes
Does your mother and your psychiatrist know about your Usenet fantasies?
I wish the Universe would just take you out. I hate watching dumb
animals suffer.
Parsons
2007-08-26 18:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Catto
Post by St. Jackanapes
Forrest Gump at least had the mental
equipment to function in the real world, and make something of himself.
What real world? Gump wasn't a true story. Did you actually believe
that?
Did you cry when you found out it wasn't, Dicky?
Post by Richard Catto
LULZ!
Post by St. Jackanapes
Unlike Forrest, all you do is sit in your fairyland and dream up
exploits in the Canadian Army or of being a corrections officer - oh
wait, first you were just a volunteer to the police department then in a
couple of weeks you became secretary to a homicide squad, then you
suddenly became a secretary to a corrections department in a Canadian
prison, before long you were a guard! And that's just the short list of
your career that comes to mind as I sit here.
Take drugs.
That's it.
Impressive.
That sounds like part of your life, Porky.
Post by Richard Catto
Post by St. Jackanapes
To coin a phrase, you've got more shit than a Christmas turkey.
LULZ!
You're a moron.
And you're a child molester, Dicky.
Post by Richard Catto
Post by St. Jackanapes
Is your little life so boring and dull that you have to invent these
fantasy lives to lead?
Your life is so fucked up, it's not worth mentioning.
That describes your life.
Post by Richard Catto
You're brainless.
That you are.
Post by Richard Catto
Post by St. Jackanapes
And do you need to share them with us just to
give these constructs legitimacy?
Quit eating your play dough. It contains lead.
Is that why your ass is so fat?
Post by Richard Catto
Post by St. Jackanapes
Does your mother and your psychiatrist know about your Usenet fantasies?
I wish the Universe would just take you out. I hate watching dumb
animals suffer.
You know how you love to torture animals, Dicky.
Spirit of pro wrestling
2007-08-30 11:15:34 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 26, 12:15 am, St. Jackanapes
Post by St. Jackanapes
Spirit of pro wrestling held us spellbound with...
Post by St. Jackanapes
Rev. Karl E. Taylor held us spellbound with...
Post by Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
<SMACK> Shut the fuck up asshat. No one believes a word you post.
Is that neurologically deformed liar still coming back here trying to
make us believe his laughable attempts at fibs, fiction, and fish
stories? What is he now?
DEpends on what mymyspacepage says.
Which is nothing more than an extension of your Asbergers-driven
obsessive fantasies......
Myspace pages DO NOT LIE. Everything on them is the truth.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
2007-08-30 11:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
On Aug 26, 12:15 am, St. Jackanapes
Post by St. Jackanapes
Spirit of pro wrestling held us spellbound with...
Post by St. Jackanapes
Rev. Karl E. Taylor held us spellbound with...
Post by Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
<SMACK> Shut the fuck up asshat. No one believes a word you post.
Is that neurologically deformed liar still coming back here trying to
make us believe his laughable attempts at fibs, fiction, and fish
stories? What is he now?
DEpends on what mymyspacepage says.
Which is nothing more than an extension of your Asbergers-driven
obsessive fantasies......
Myspace pages DO NOT LIE. Everything on them is the truth.
Asshat, shut the fuck up you liar and go back to sucking Tobbis' dick.

Sheesh, you'd think you'd have learned by now.

- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz

A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/

Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
St. Jackanapes
2007-08-30 12:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Spirit of pro wrestling held us spellbound with...
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
On Aug 26, 12:15 am, St. Jackanapes
Post by St. Jackanapes
Spirit of pro wrestling held us spellbound with...
Post by St. Jackanapes
Rev. Karl E. Taylor held us spellbound with...
Post by Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
<SMACK> Shut the fuck up asshat. No one believes a word you post.
Is that neurologically deformed liar still coming back here trying to
make us believe his laughable attempts at fibs, fiction, and fish
stories? What is he now?
DEpends on what mymyspacepage says.
Which is nothing more than an extension of your Asbergers-driven
obsessive fantasies......
Myspace pages DO NOT LIE. Everything on them is the truth.
Liar.
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
===========================================================
"The most annoying atheists are on alt.flame.jesus.christ!"
-- John Vogel, the most annoying Christian.
Robibnikoff
2007-08-30 12:14:03 UTC
Permalink
"Spirit of pro wrestling" <***@hotmail.com>

snip
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Myspace pages DO NOT LIE. Everything on them is the truth.
Shut the fuck up, Asshat <SMACK!>
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
The Chief Instigator
2007-08-30 13:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
On Aug 26, 12:15 am, St. Jackanapes
Post by St. Jackanapes
Spirit of pro wrestling held us spellbound with...
Post by St. Jackanapes
Rev. Karl E. Taylor held us spellbound with...
Post by Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments
define morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are
crap. The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
<SMACK> Shut the fuck up asshat. No one believes a word you post.
Is that neurologically deformed liar still coming back here trying to
make us believe his laughable attempts at fibs, fiction, and fish
stories? What is he now?
DEpends on what mymyspacepage says.
Which is nothing more than an extension of your Asbergers-driven
obsessive fantasies......
Myspace pages DO NOT LIE. Everything on them is the truth.
<slapshot to Asshat's head>Just like you're a "graduate" of some college in
Toronto that's never heard of you.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (***@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
Robibnikoff
2007-08-24 15:45:19 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
Fuck off, Asshat.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Mark K. Bilbo
2007-08-24 19:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed
that it was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just
as moral as any Christian. I asked him this simple question: "
Given the basic assumptions of "militant atheism," if somebody put
a bullet in your brain, would that person have done anything
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is
wrong then you have no real understanding of what it means to be
an atheist. The entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur
invented to label the people who do not wish to be forced to
either sanction with their tax dollars or to honor your
prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a free society
without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it
doesn't infringe upon me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or
lifestyle. I just realize that I have no right to tell anyone how
to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they
are (mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know
how an atheist accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder
for one human being to kill another human being, but it's not
murder for a dog to kill another dog? Why is it wrong for one
group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish the "life force" of
another group of randomly formed atoms?
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the
argument. My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight
just as hard for your right to believe whatever the heck you want
as long as it doesn't infringe upon me." Where does this rule come
from? In a universe that supposedly came into existence by chance
from the accidental collection of atoms, where do "rights" and
"self-determination" come from? The Declaration of Independence
accounts for such things by asserting that they are an endowment
from the Creator. If there is no God but only matter, why is
anything right or wrong?
The debate over the existence of God has been a long one. The
Bible acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence.
Such a person is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1). American Vision has
been on the front lines in confronting the atheists head on. We've
published two books: Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas
Wilson and The Return of the Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon.
Both have gotten some attention. There will be an online debate
between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, author of God is
Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today. The
Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.
Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.
Next week, ABC's Nightline hasKirk Cameronand Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.
No. Really. Nightline has tappedKirk Cameronto be fidei defensor.
I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa
Whelchel, Mr. T, Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.
Instead, we'd rather hear from Douglas Wilson, author of the new
book, Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision). Wilson is
senior fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College and
minister at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor
of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has written (among other things)
Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of
Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. His Blog and Mablog
site inevitably makes for provocative reading.
Wilson will be corresponding with Christopher Hitchens, author of
the new book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (
Twelve Books). Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair
and a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School. He
Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man," Letters To a
Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters. He was named, to his own
amusement, number five on a list of the "Top 100 Public
Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.
You'll enjoy the discussion regardless of whether you're already
familiar with Wilson and Hitchens. But if you are familiar with
their work, you'll know that it promises to be anything but
boring.
by Gary DeMar
5/7/2007
The answer is simple. A lot simpler than most fundamentalists realize.
What kind of world do you want to live in? Do you want to live in
the kind of world where people steal, kill, rape, and perform other
atrocities?
No? Then don't do it, yourself.
DO you think you can obey all 10 of the Ten Commandments on your
own!? (-;
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are crap.
The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
HO! <WHACK>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Arrogance has to be earned. Tell me what you've done to earn yours."

- Dr. House
Irv Hyatt
2007-08-24 21:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Post by Spirit of pro wrestling
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Post by Conspiracy of Doves
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed
that it was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just
as moral as any Christian. I asked him this simple question: "
Given the basic assumptions of "militant atheism," if somebody put
a bullet in your brain, would that person have done anything
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is
wrong then you have no real understanding of what it means to be
an atheist. The entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur
invented to label the people who do not wish to be forced to
either sanction with their tax dollars or to honor your
prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a free society
without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for
your right to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it
doesn't infringe upon me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or
lifestyle. I just realize that I have no right to tell anyone how
to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they
are (mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know
how an atheist accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder
for one human being to kill another human being, but it's not
murder for a dog to kill another dog? Why is it wrong for one
group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish the "life force" of
another group of randomly formed atoms?
You may have noticed something else that atheists throw into the
argument. My emailer did it in predictable fashion: "I would fight
just as hard for your right to believe whatever the heck you want
as long as it doesn't infringe upon me." Where does this rule come
from? In a universe that supposedly came into existence by chance
from the accidental collection of atoms, where do "rights" and
"self-determination" come from? The Declaration of Independence
accounts for such things by asserting that they are an endowment
from the Creator. If there is no God but only matter, why is
anything right or wrong?
The debate over the existence of God has been a long one. The
Bible acknowledges that there are people who deny God's existence.
Such a person is called a "fool" (Psalm 14:1). American Vision has
been on the front lines in confronting the atheists head on. We've
published two books: Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas
Wilson and The Return of the Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon.
Both have gotten some attention. There will be an online debate
between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, author of God is
Not Great. It will be sponsored by Christianity Today. The
Newsweek had Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris.
Beliefnet had Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan.
Next week, ABC's Nightline hasKirk Cameronand Ray Comfort vs. the
BlasphemyChallenge.com guys.
No. Really. Nightline has tappedKirk Cameronto be fidei defensor.
I suppose we could have asked Cameron, too. Or maybe Lisa
Whelchel, Mr. T, Willie Aames, Justine Bateman, or Gavin McLeod.
Instead, we'd rather hear from Douglas Wilson, author of the new
book, Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision). Wilson is
senior fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College and
minister at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor
of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has written (among other things)
Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of
Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. His Blog and Mablog
site inevitably makes for provocative reading.
Wilson will be corresponding with Christopher Hitchens, author of
the new book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (
Twelve Books). Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair
and a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School. He
Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man," Letters To a
Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters. He was named, to his own
amusement, number five on a list of the "Top 100 Public
Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.
You'll enjoy the discussion regardless of whether you're already
familiar with Wilson and Hitchens. But if you are familiar with
their work, you'll know that it promises to be anything but
boring.
by Gary DeMar
5/7/2007
The answer is simple. A lot simpler than most fundamentalists realize.
What kind of world do you want to live in? Do you want to live in
the kind of world where people steal, kill, rape, and perform other
atrocities?
No? Then don't do it, yourself.
DO you think you can obey all 10 of the Ten Commandments on your
own!? (-;
Why would I want to bother? It's not as if the 10 Commandments define
morality.
Sure, there's a couple good rules in there, but a lot of them are crap.
The average 5-year-old could come up with a better set of 10.
There doesn't even need to be a set of rules.
Oh, yes there does.
HO! <WHACK>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Arrogance has to be earned. Tell me what you've done to earn yours."
- Dr. House
I worship that man. Have a Netflix dvd here right now with part of season
3.
Can't get enough of House!
Mark K. Bilbo
2007-08-25 13:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irv Hyatt
I worship that man. Have a Netflix dvd here right now with part of
season 3. Can't get enough of House!
Same here. And I don't *like* medical shows.

(Probably has to do with growing up surrounded by nurses and being
practically raised in hospitals. <g> The things those people would talk
about at the dinner table. <urk>)

I get so caught up in this one though. The whole story arc of the asshole
cop that was after House, I kept getting so wound up. I'm still pissed
off at the cop character. <g>

Though I have to say, I really can't figure out the over bearing season
finale where everybody leaves. Foreman, I got, that made sense. But
firing Chase? Where the hell did that come from? Then again, can't say
I'll miss Dr. Whiny (she could've been a much better character, she was
too broad... and, no, I don't mean *that*).

I dunno. It bugged me because I rarely feel the writers pushing the
characters around. This time it felt forced. Like they were ready to
introduce a whole new crew (I understand they are doing just that for the
next season).

Ah well. Still a great show. Even though I understand it's not always
very accurate medically. I had wondered how they could manage to be
accurate dealing with obscure, complicated cases. Apparently, they're
rather uneven.

But I can put up with a lot for Hugh Laurey's character. <g>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
Irv Hyatt
2007-08-25 14:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Post by Irv Hyatt
I worship that man. Have a Netflix dvd here right now with part of
season 3. Can't get enough of House!
Same here. And I don't *like* medical shows.
(Probably has to do with growing up surrounded by nurses and being
practically raised in hospitals. <g> The things those people would talk
about at the dinner table. <urk>)
I get so caught up in this one though. The whole story arc of the asshole
cop that was after House, I kept getting so wound up. I'm still pissed
off at the cop character. <g>
Uh oh, those are the ones I'm watching so maybe I'm not going to read the
rest of this.
The conclusion episodes will be here Tuesday....
It would be nice if doctors actually took that kind of interest in each
patient.
Instead they leave you sitting in the waiting area until you die (here in
L.A.) and then shut down the entire hospital. Now there's no place to go at
all.
This area is so bad they are closing down our Walmart within the year
because there's so much theft. It's about the only store to go to within 10
miles.
Good ole South Central. All the store has to do is modernize and have
better surveillance.
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Though I have to say, I really can't figure out the over bearing season
finale where everybody leaves. Foreman, I got, that made sense. But
firing Chase? Where the hell did that come from? Then again, can't say
I'll miss Dr. Whiny (she could've been a much better character, she was
too broad... and, no, I don't mean *that*).
I dunno. It bugged me because I rarely feel the writers pushing the
characters around. This time it felt forced. Like they were ready to
introduce a whole new crew (I understand they are doing just that for the
next season).
Ah well. Still a great show. Even though I understand it's not always
very accurate medically. I had wondered how they could manage to be
accurate dealing with obscure, complicated cases. Apparently, they're
rather uneven.
But I can put up with a lot for Hugh Laurey's character. <g>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
Mark K. Bilbo
2007-08-25 15:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irv Hyatt
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Post by Irv Hyatt
I worship that man. Have a Netflix dvd here right now with part of
season 3. Can't get enough of House!
Same here. And I don't *like* medical shows.
(Probably has to do with growing up surrounded by nurses and being
practically raised in hospitals. <g> The things those people would talk
about at the dinner table. <urk>)
I get so caught up in this one though. The whole story arc of the
asshole cop that was after House, I kept getting so wound up. I'm still
pissed off at the cop character. <g>
Uh oh, those are the ones I'm watching so maybe I'm not going to read
the rest of this.
Oh, sorry! I just assumed you'd seen everything up to the conclusion of
the season.
Post by Irv Hyatt
The conclusion episodes will be here Tuesday.... It would be nice if
doctors actually took that kind of interest in each patient.
Instead they leave you sitting in the waiting area until you die (here
in L.A.) and then shut down the entire hospital. Now there's no place
to go at all.
This area is so bad they are closing down our Walmart within the year
because there's so much theft. It's about the only store to go to
within 10 miles.
Good ole South Central. All the store has to do is modernize and have
better surveillance.
South Central? Yikes! I steered clear of that area...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
David Schwartz
2007-07-29 01:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by U2
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If someone put a bullet in your brain because god asked him to, would
that person have done anything wrong?

DS
RU Liken IT Yet!
2007-07-29 01:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Schwartz
Post by U2
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If someone put a bullet in your brain because god asked him to, would
that person have done anything wrong?
God would never ask that, for today.
Smiler
2007-07-29 04:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
Post by David Schwartz
Post by U2
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If someone put a bullet in your brain because god asked him to, would
that person have done anything wrong?
God would never ask that, for today.
Did you ask him?
Of course, as god only exists within your head, he won't disagree with you.

Smiler,
The godless one
Opus-
2007-07-29 08:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
Post by David Schwartz
Post by U2
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If someone put a bullet in your brain because god asked him to, would
that person have done anything wrong?
God would never ask that, for today.
Did you ask him?
Of course, as god only exists within your head, he won't disagree with you.
But gawd DID ask Abraham to sacrifice his then only son Isaac and he
was actually about to so when gawd, at the last possible second, told
Abraham not to do that, that it was only a test.

And that set the stage. It's plainly written that a true believer MUST
be willing to kill their own children at gawd's demand. If gawd
demands that you firebomb a daycare, then you MUST do so and LOVE it,
because you are doing gawd's bidding.

And they call US amoral...

--
***@hotmail.com
(Jim, daddy to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"With God, all atrocities are acceptable and embraced"

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.
Father Haskell
2007-07-29 16:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Opus-
Post by Smiler
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
Post by David Schwartz
Post by U2
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If someone put a bullet in your brain because god asked him to, would
that person have done anything wrong?
God would never ask that, for today.
Did you ask him?
Of course, as god only exists within your head, he won't disagree with you.
But gawd DID ask Abraham to sacrifice his then only son Isaac and he
was actually about to so when gawd, at the last possible second, told
Abraham not to do that, that it was only a test.
And that set the stage. It's plainly written that a true believer MUST
be willing to kill their own children at gawd's demand. If gawd
demands that you firebomb a daycare, then you MUST do so and LOVE it,
because you are doing gawd's bidding.
And they call US amoral...
It's not a question of morality. It's a question of sanity.
LJ Fan Club
2007-07-29 17:06:53 UTC
Permalink
"Father Haskell" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

. Atheism is, essentially, a negative position

Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.

In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of
atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles;
at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you can't prove a
negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to say that
atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist.
But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do
you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all
places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there were a
proof of Gods non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it.
But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or
denying Gods existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not
impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheisms truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.

"Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does
not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually
indefensible."Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as
the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the
attack and negate any evidences presented for Gods existence in order to
give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an
evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position
can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of
theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to
self-proclaimed life.

There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible
and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words,
it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is
possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the
position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on
Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth
adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So,
simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a
possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.

At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as fulfilled
biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the
entropy problem, etc.

But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for Gods
existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove
there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually
indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing
evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences
for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist
in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far
presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be
evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must
acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been
undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make
the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be
skeptical of Gods existence.

This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it:
themselves.




Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws
from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do
live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws.
This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However,
since the legal system changes the morals in a society can still change and
their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are "temporary
absolutes." In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. So,
if we ask if it is or isn't it right, the atheist can only tell us his
opinion.

If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then
who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual,
then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics."
In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with
ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it.
Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior.
But, as we see by looking into society, this isn't the case: crime is on
the rise.

There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental
ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a
mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill,
what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system
and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not?
Morality becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes.


But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based
on the Bible, there is no guarantee that he will not also join forces in
doing what is wrong. People are often very inconsistent. But the issue
here is the basis of moral beliefs and how they affect behavior. That is
why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. If
morals are relative, then behavior will be too. That can be dangerous if
everyone starts doing right in his own eyes. A boat adrift without an
anchor will eventual crash into the rocks.


The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even
when it might harm the Christian. In contrast, the atheists'
presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and does not
demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great
majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is
the product of purely natural and random processes that become self
serving.


Basically, the atheist cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an
atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad.
But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes
-- based on God's word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals
that atheism offers.



Atheists often challenge the theist to prove God's existence only within
the confines of science.
Science has served humanity well. Through it we have discovered countless
natural laws of the universe and use that knowledge to make our lives
easier in every area of our existence. But to limit a theist's proofs to
the confines of what the atheist demands is terribly one sided. To a
Christian, there are experiences that science and logic cannot explain.
The atheist needs to recognize that we have experiences that are life
changing. No mere psychological set of theories explains the changes in
our lives. So please, don't mock them. Can science nail down all that
exists in mind, body, and soul? No. Can it quantify the beauty of a
sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman? Science
and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all
things.
Of course, that does not mean we ignore science. In fact, we use it in our
proofs for God. But to limit the playing field to your set of rules is an
improper way to start. It is mostly an attempt to initiate control and
keep command of the conversation by setting the ground rules according to
your criteria.

Though an atheist may not accept biblical evidence at support for God's
existence, it does not negate the fact that the Bible is evidence. Whether
or not the atheist wants to accept it, is another matter.
Name-calling and insults.
Of course, this is obvious. I heard it said once that the man who strikes
first admits his arguments have run out. In some of the discussions I've
had with atheists, when I've made a valid point in logic, I have been
insulted. To call someone a name is to attack the person and not the issue
and it closes the door to true discussion.
Condescension
This is the most common of all mistakes I've encountered with atheists.
I've been told by atheists that I'm an idiot for believing God, that if I
were truly intelligent I'd abandon my anachronistic thinking, etc. These
comments do nothing to further discussion.
Straw-man argumentation
Sometimes atheists will construct an argument against Christianity that
does not reflect a true Christian position. For example, one atheist
stated that the Trinity was illogical because three gods could not be one
God. I had to correct him and show him that the Trinity is the doctrine
that there is only one God in three persons, not three gods.

Other straw-man arguments deal with persons who claim to be Christians and
act in an unchristian manner. A typical example is the white supremacist
who claims to be a Christian and when he does something which is against
the Bible, his bad example is used to label all Christians.


In all, I enjoy mixing it up with atheists in their own environment. (-:
John Popelish
2007-07-29 18:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJ Fan Club
. Atheism is, essentially, a negative position
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of
atheism.
(snip)

Your hypothetical god is yours to sell. So far, no
arguments for any hypothetical gods I have heard, have been
persuasive for me. I remain unconvinced of the validity of
any of those hypotheses (and there any a great many of them).

I have no hypothetical god hypothetical to defend with any
argument. You are free to believe any damn fool things you
like, just don't expect me to agree with you in those
beliefs, unless you have some valid support (evidence and
logical argument that connects it to your hypotheses) for them.

Your hypotheticals are not my problem to disprove, they are
your problem to prove, if that sort of thing motivates you.
LJ Fan Club
2007-07-29 21:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJ Fan Club
. Atheism is, essentially, a negative position
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of
atheism.
. The Folly of Atheism

(Psalm 53 NASB)

. Folly and Wickedness of Men.

For the choir director; according to ???Mahalath. A ?.?Maskil of David.

1 ?a?The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God,"
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
?b?There is no one who does good.

2 God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there is ?a?anyone who ?1?understands, Who ?b?seeks after God.

3 ?a?Every one of them has turned aside; together they have
become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.

4 Have the workers of wickedness ?a?no knowledge,
Who eat up My people as though they ate bread
And have not called upon God?

5 There they were in great ?1?fear ?a?where no ?1?fear had been;
For God ?b?scattered the bones of ?2?him who encamped against you;
You ?c?put them to shame, because ?d?God had rejected them.

6 Oh, that ?a?the salvation of Israel ?1?would come out of Zion!
When God ?2?restores His captive people, ?3?Let Jacob rejoice, let Israel
be glad.

[1]

. Psalm 53: The Folly of Atheism

The main difference between Psalm 14 and this one is that the name of God
is changed from Jehovah (or Yahweh) to Elohim.? 39 In Psalm 14 the fool
denies the existence of the covenant-keeping God (Jehovah, Lord) who is
deeply interested and involved in the welfare of His people. Here the fool
denies the existence of an almighty, sovereign God (Elohim) who sustains
and governs the universe.

God can be denied in both senses: some deny that the Creator has any
special interest in any particular race or group of men; others repudiate
any possibility of there being a God at all (Daily Notes of the Scripture
Union).

53:1 The fool is not necessarily a dunce or stupid. He may be
intellectually brilliant as far as contemporary education is concerned,
but he does not want to face the evidence as to the person, power and
providence of God. He is willfully ignorant. "The Hebrew word has in it
the idea of a malicious refusal to acknowledge the truth."

Atheism is linked with depravity and degradation, sometimes as cause,
sometimes as effect. Therefore it is not surprising that those who say
"There is no Elohim" are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity. There is none
of them who does good.

53:2 Now the subject seems to glide from atheists in particular to mankind
in general. Paul quotes snatches from these verses in Romans 3 to
establish the total depravity of all mankind. The indictment is true, of
course. As God looks down from heaven upon the race of men, He cannot find
one who, left to himself, would have the wisdom to fear the Lord. Apart
from the prior ministry of the Holy Spirit, no one would seek God.

53:3 They have all turned aside from the living God. They have all become
depraved. Not one does good in the sense of something that can gain favor
or merit with the Lord.

53:4, 5 Again, there seems to be a switch to a particular class of
sinners, namely, those apostates who persecute God's people. How can they
be so short-sighted? They are cruel and prayerless. They think no more of
destroying the faithful remnant than of eating bread. And they never feel
the need of speaking to God in prayer. They seem completely insensible to
the fact that one day they will be seized with unprecedented terror. God
will scatter the bones of those who wage war against His loyal followers.

53:6 In the last verse, David prays for the coming of the Messiah. He is
the Deliverer who will come out of Zion (Rom. 11:26) and save all
believing Israel. In that day Israel will be restored, Jacob will rejoice
and Israel will be glad.

[2]

Evolutionism can be found at the very root of atheism, communism,
relativism and every other form of anti-Christian practice. Dangerous and
deadly social problems are deeply rooted in the purposelessness of
materialistic evolutionism: suicide, homosexuality, promiscuity, abortion
and chemical abuse-just to name the most obvious. Evolutionism has played
a major part in influencing the way humans think of themselves. Problems
of low self-esteem, animalistic behavior and depression result from the
feeling of meaninglessness in life-that belief in evolution-or lack of
belief in God-brings. Evolutionism attacks God's omniscience. If the
universe, life and all creatures are comprised of things evolved through
chance and error in genetic transmutations, then there is no God. Of all
of the deadly fruit that evolutionism has produced, racism is one of the
most toxic. The ABCs of evolutionism breed racism.

[3]

Atheism's rejection of God appeals to people who wish to avoid judgment
for their sinful lifestyle.

?Romans 1:18-23? makes clear that the matter of rejecting God is willful
and due to the love of sin:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because
that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it
evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without
excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or
give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their
foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and
exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of
corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling
creatures.

Into the confusion caused by conflicting philosophies and idolatry, Paul
spoke forcefully the truth that the one true God not only exists but can
also be known: What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to
you. That God can be known is the clear teaching of the Bible (?Deut.
4:35?; ?1 Kings 8:43?; ?1 Chron. 28:9?; ?Ps. 9:10?; ?Jer. 9:24?; ?24:7?;
?31:34?; ?John 17:3?). This God who can be known is the believer's message
of hope to the lost world.

[4]

The agnostic or atheist may be using his agnosticism or atheism as a
crutch to avoid the responsibility of God's demands.

The God of the Bible is awesome and a threat to mankind. A God who is
all-powerful, all-knowing, righteous, holy, and just, and who is going to
judge the world for its sin, is an extremely imposing figure. Thus it is
only fair to point out that some need the crutch of denying God's
existence in order to live their lives as they please without fear of
judgment.

Aldous Huxley articulated this in Ends and Means: "For myself, the
philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation,
sexual and political" (Ends and Means, p. 270 ff.).

The truth of the Christian faith is not based upon psychological needs for
or against God. Yes, it is possible that Christianity could have started
because people need something to lean on, but the question is not how it
could have started but how it did start.

We again are brought back to the real issue, which is the person of Jesus
Christ. Does mankind need to lean on Him, or can we lean on something
else?

Jesus made the issue very clear, "Therefore whosoever heareth these
sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which
built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came,
and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was
founded upon a rock.

"And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." (Matthew
7:24-27, KJV).

One could also state it this way. A crutch presupposes two things: (1)
that there is a disease, sickness, or hurt, and (2) that a person has been
given some type of a remedy (this is why he has the crutch).

Two questions immediately arise. First, what is this disease? Is it real
or imagined? And second, is the remedy the correct one for the disease?

With Christianity, God clearly states that the disease is sin, and that
the disease is real. It is not a psychological, imaginary hand-up in need
of a religious fix as Marx would propound. Rather, the remedy instead of
being a religious crutch, is a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Therefore, Christianity in one sense is a crutch. But it is more than a
crutch; it is the sure foundation, the truth of life.

If Jesus Christ be God and died on the cross for our sins and created us
to be in fellowship with God the Father through Him, then to call Him a
crutch would be like a light bulb saying to an electrical socket, "You are
my crutch." As a light bulb was created to function properly when inserted
into the socket, so we have been created to function properly in a
personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

[5]

. Marvin L. Lubenow writes:

The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of
God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as
basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution.
Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was
designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of
the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation. Obviously,
if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an
evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with
atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as
long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are
private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no
absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator,
Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. All are responsible to him. He has an agenda
that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the
image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is
very comfortable.?8?

To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of
Genesis and thereby to oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability
of His law. Evolution is simply the latest means our fallen race has
devised in order to suppress our innate knowledge and the biblical
testimony that there is a God and that we are accountable to Him (cf.
Romans 1:28). By embracing evolution, modern society aims to do away with
morality, responsibility, and guilt. Society has embraced evolution with
such enthusiasm because people imagine that it eliminates the Judge and
leaves them free to do whatever they want without guilt and without
consequences.

[6]

Either as cause or consequence, atheism and agnosticism are linked with a
corrupt life. Barnes writes:

The belief that there is no God is commonly founded on the desire to lead
a wicked life, or is embraced by those who in fact live such a life, with
a desire to sustain themselves in their depravity and to avoid the fear of
future retribution.? 15

[7]

Now when you get to the time of David, you meet atheists, and there were a
great many atheists by that time. David labels them, though. He says,
"?The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God?" (Psalm 14:1). The
word fool in the Hebrew means "?insane.?" The insane, the nutty
individual, is the one who is the atheist. Of course, he may be a Ph.D. in
a university, but he's a nutty individual. The Bible says he is insane. It
is insane for a man to say there is no God. A friend of mine had a
marvelous ministry with atheists. He was in a crowd one day where a
big-mouthed fellow was saying, "?I do not believe there is a God. I think
that when man dies, he's just like a dog. He dies and that's it.?" This
friend of mine, a very courteous man, said, "?Did I understand you to say
that you don't believe there is a God??"

"?Yes.?"

"?Are you an atheist??"

"?Yes.?"

"?Well, I have a question to ask you. The Bible says that the fool, the
insane, is the one who says there is no God. Now either you were insincere
when you made the statement, you didn't really mean it, or else you're
insane. Would you tell me which way it is??"

It has to be one way or the other when a man says there is no God. But,
you see, we've come a long way since David's day!

[8]

Atheists claim that there is no God. They contend that there is no God in
the world (as pantheism holds) and there is no God beyond the world (as
deism claims). Furthermore, there is no God who is actually both in the
world and beyond the world as theism claims, nor is there any
panentheistic God beyond the world who is related to the world as a mind
to body. There is no God of any kind, anywhere.

Of course, atheism is not merely a negative position. Most atheists do not
view themselves as antitheists but simply nontheists. As nontheists,
atheists offer a positive view of their own which they may call humanism,
materialism, naturalism, or positivism. Since we are primarily concerned
here with the question of whether there is a God and, if so, what kind of
God he is, we will consider the arguments and reasons given by selected
major atheists as to why they believe there is no God. Special concern
will be given as to why they believe there is no theistic God. In this
context it will be necessary to discuss the negative emphasis of atheism
as a world view denying the existence of God.

[9]

Atheism comes in many varieties. The term atheism covers a widely
divergent group of thinkers. There are traditional atheists who believe
that there never was, is, or will be a God (Jean-Paul Sartre is an
example).1 Then there is the mythological atheist like Nietzsche,2 who
believed that the God-myth was once alive, that is, it was a model men
believed and lived by, but that this myth died and is no longer workable.
Some years ago Thomas Altizer popularized another form of atheism which
may be called dialectical atheism.3 This view affirms the paradox that God
was once really alive but that he died in the incarnation and crucifixion
of Christ and that it has taken until modern times to realize that this is
so. Finally, there is what may be called semantical or linguistical
atheism (as in Paul Van Buren),4 which claims that God-talk is dead, that
is, that there is no cognitive meaning to religious language.

Since we are concerned here with metaphysical atheism, we will discuss
primarily the forms that provide some arguments denying that there is
really a God in and/or beyond the world now. Although it is a serious
thing to a believer in God to deny that he can talk meaningfully about
God, semantical atheism as such does not involve any denial that there may
be a God there who can somehow be felt or experienced. This view at least
leaves the door open to the fact that God exists and that he can in some
way be experienced. Hence, this view is not really metaphysical atheism.

Not all atheists claim knock-down-and-drag-out arguments against God. Like
theists, they claim varying degrees of certitude ranging from absolute
certainty to low degrees of probability. Many of the arguments, then, are
not offered as disproofs of God but merely as evidence against the
existence of a God. Other arguments are considered by their proponents as
definite disproofs of God. We will consider both types, attempting to put
the arguments in the strongest form possible.

Another important distinction to keep in mind is that atheism makes two
argumentative moves. First, it offers objections to the supposed grounds
upon which others believe in God. Since these arguments do not attempt to
disprove God but simply to refute the grounds upon which some men believe
in God, they will be considered in the next chapter as objections to
theism. Here we will consider only attempts to prove there is no God. The
following summary will indicate the major kinds of arguments for atheism
and the direction in which they go.

[10]


. Summary and Conclusion

Atheism provides some valuable correctives to and modifications of theism.
Many of its arguments either correct misconceptions some theists have of
God or of his relation to the world or else they expose contradictory
theistic concepts. Atheists have been active as well in contributing to
humanistic causes and earnest in scientific endeavors.

However, as a total world view atheism does not measure up. First, its
arguments are invalid and often self-defeating. Second, many atheistic
arguments are really reversible into reasons for believing in God.
Finally, atheism provides no solution to basic metaphysical questions
regarding the existence of the universe or the origin of personality and
the actualization of the world process. Atheists must believe that
something comes from nothing, that potentials actualize themselves, and
that matter generated mind. It seems much more reasonable to believe in a
God who made something where there was nothing, who actualized the
potentials that could not actualize themselves, and whose Mind formed
matter.

[11]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

? I.e. sickness, a sad tone

. Possibly, Contemplative, or Didactic, or Skillful Psalm

a Ps 10:4; 14:1-7; 53:1-6

b Rom 3:10

a Rom 3:11

1 Or acts wisely

b 2 Chr 15:2

a Rom 3:12

a Jer 4:22

1 Or dread

a Lev 26:17, 36; Prov 28:1

b Ps 141:7; Jer 8:1, 2; Ezek 6:5

2 Or possibly, those

c Ps 44:7

d 2 Kin 17:20; Jer 6:30; Lam 5:22

a Ps 14:7

1 Lit would be

2 Or restores the fortunes of His people

3 Or Jacob will rejoice, Israel will be glad

[1]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ps 53:1-6). LaHabra,
CA: The Lockman Foundation.

? 39 (53:Intro) In Psalm 14 the name Jehovah is used four time and Elohim
three times. Here the name Elohim is found seven times.

[2]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary
: Old and New Testaments (Ps 53:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[3]Lindsay, D. G. (1999, c1995). The ABC's of evolutionism : Ape-man,
batman, catwoman, and other evolutionary fantasies (the rest of the
stories). Dallas, TX: Christ for the Nations.

[4]MacArthur, J. (1994, c1996). Acts (326). Chicago: Moody Press.

[5]McDowell, J., & Stewart, D. D. (1993). Answers to tough questions.
Originally published: San Bernardino, Calif. : Here's Life Publishers,
c1980. Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

8 Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assesment of Human
Fossils (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 188-89.

[6]MacArthur, J. (2001). The battle for the beginning : The Bible on
creation and the fall of Adam (24). Nashville, TN: W Pub. Group.

? 15 (14:1) Barnes, Psalms, I:114.

[7]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary
: Old and New Testaments (Ps 14:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[8]McGee, J. V. (2001, c1988). The best of J. Vernon McGee : A collection
of his best-loved sermons, volume 1 (electronic ed.) (55). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers.

[9]Geisler, N. L. (1976). Christian apologetics. Includes index. (215).
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

1 See Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, pt. Four.

2 See Friedrich Nietzsche, Gay Science.

3 Thomas Altizer, The Gospel of Christian Atheism.

4 Paul Van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel.

[10]Geisler, N. L. (1976). Christian apologetics. Includes index. (215).
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

[11]Geisler, N. L. (1976). Christian apologetics. Includes index. (234).
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-10 16:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJ Fan Club
. Atheism is, essentially, a negative position
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of
atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles;
at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you can't prove a
negative regarding God's existence.
You do love your strawman don't you? Wouldn't you just love to be
able to argue honestly?
snip
MarkA
2007-07-29 21:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
Post by David Schwartz
Post by U2
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If someone put a bullet in your brain because god asked him to, would
that person have done anything wrong?
God would never ask that, for today.
Irrelevant. Answer the question.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
LJ Fan Club
2007-07-29 21:55:27 UTC
Permalink
. The Folly of Atheism

(Psalm 53 NASB)

. Folly and Wickedness of Men.

For the choir director; according to ???Mahalath. A ???Maskil of David.

1 ?a?The fool has said in his heart, ŽThere is no God,¡
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
?b?There is no one who does good.

2 God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there is ?a?anyone who ?1?understands, Who ?b?seeks after God.

3 ?a?Every one of them has turned aside; together they have
become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.

4 Have the workers of wickedness ?a?no knowledge,
Who eat up My people as though they ate bread
And have not called upon God?

5 There they were in great ?1?fear ?a?where no ?1?fear had been;
For God ?b?scattered the bones of ?2?him who encamped against you;
You ?c?put them to shame, because ?d?God had rejected them.

6 Oh, that ?a?the salvation of Israel ?1?would come out of Zion!
When God ?2?restores His captive people, ?3?Let Jacob rejoice, let Israel
be glad.

[1]

. Psalm 53: The Folly of Atheism

The main difference between Psalm 14 and this one is that the name of God
is changed from Jehovah (or Yahweh) to Elohim.? 39 In Psalm 14 the fool
denies the existence of the covenant-keeping God (Jehovah, Lord) who is
deeply interested and involved in the welfare of His people. Here the fool
denies the existence of an almighty, sovereign God (Elohim) who sustains
and governs the universe.

God can be denied in both senses: some deny that the Creator has any
special interest in any particular race or group of men; others repudiate
any possibility of there being a God at all (Daily Notes of the Scripture
Union).

53:1 The fool is not necessarily a dunce or stupid. He may be
intellectually brilliant as far as contemporary education is concerned,
but he does not want to face the evidence as to the person, power and
providence of God. He is willfully ignorant. ŽThe Hebrew word has in it
the idea of a malicious refusal to acknowledge the truth.¡

Atheism is linked with depravity and degradation, sometimes as cause,
sometimes as effect. Therefore it is not surprising that those who say
ŽThere is no Elohim¡ are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity. There is none
of them who does good.

53:2 Now the subject seems to glide from atheists in particular to mankind
in general. Paul quotes snatches from these verses in Romans 3 to
establish the total depravity of all mankind. The indictment is true, of
course. As God looks down from heaven upon the race of men, He cannot find
one who, left to himself, would have the wisdom to fear the Lord. Apart
from the prior ministry of the Holy Spirit, no one would seek God.

53:3 They have all turned aside from the living God. They have all become
depraved. Not one does good in the sense of something that can gain favor
or merit with the Lord.

53:4, 5 Again, there seems to be a switch to a particular class of
sinners, namely, those apostates who persecute Godÿs people. How can they
be so short-sighted? They are cruel and prayerless. They think no more of
destroying the faithful remnant than of eating bread. And they never feel
the need of speaking to God in prayer. They seem completely insensible to
the fact that one day they will be seized with unprecedented terror. God
will scatter the bones of those who wage war against His loyal followers.

53:6 In the last verse, David prays for the coming of the Messiah. He is
the Deliverer who will come out of Zion (Rom. 11:26) and save all
believing Israel. In that day Israel will be restored, Jacob will rejoice
and Israel will be glad.

[2]

Evolutionism can be found at the very root of atheism, communism,
relativism and every other form of anti-Christian practice. Dangerous and
deadly social problems are deeply rooted in the purposelessness of
materialistic evolutionism: suicide, homosexuality, promiscuity, abortion
and chemical abuse?just to name the most obvious. Evolutionism has played
a major part in influencing the way humans think of themselves. Problems
of low self-esteem, animalistic behavior and depression result from the
feeling of meaninglessness in life?that belief in evolution?or lack of
belief in God?brings. Evolutionism attacks Godÿs omniscience. If the
universe, life and all creatures are comprised of things evolved through
chance and error in genetic transmutations, then there is no God. Of all
of the deadly fruit that evolutionism has produced, racism is one of the
most toxic. The ABCs of evolutionism breed racism.

[3]

Atheismÿs rejection of God appeals to people who wish to avoid judgment
for their sinful lifestyle.

?Romans 1:18?23? makes clear that the matter of rejecting God is willful
and due to the love of sin:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because
that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it
evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without
excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or
give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their
foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and
exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of
corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling
creatures.

Into the confusion caused by conflicting philosophies and idolatry, Paul
spoke forcefully the truth that the one true God not only exists but can
also be known: What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to
you. That God can be known is the clear teaching of the Bible (?Deut.
4:35?; ?1 Kings 8:43?; ?1 Chron. 28:9?; ?Ps. 9:10?; ?Jer. 9:24?; ?24:7?;
?31:34?; ?John 17:3?). This God who can be known is the believerÿs message
of hope to the lost world.

[4]

The agnostic or atheist may be using his agnosticism or atheism as a
crutch to avoid the responsibility of Godÿs demands.

The God of the Bible is awesome and a threat to mankind. A God who is
all-powerful, all-knowing, righteous, holy, and just, and who is going to
judge the world for its sin, is an extremely imposing figure. Thus it is
only fair to point out that some need the crutch of denying Godÿs
existence in order to live their lives as they please without fear of
judgment.

Aldous Huxley articulated this in Ends and Means: "For myself, the
philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation,
sexual and political" (Ends and Means, p. 270 ff.).

The truth of the Christian faith is not based upon psychological needs for
or against God. Yes, it is possible that Christianity could have started
because people need something to lean on, but the question is not how it
could have started but how it did start.

We again are brought back to the real issue, which is the person of Jesus
Christ. Does mankind need to lean on Him, or can we lean on something
else?

Jesus made the issue very clear, "Therefore whosoever heareth these
sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which
built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came,
and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was
founded upon a rock.

"And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." (Matthew
7:24?27, KJV).

One could also state it this way. A crutch presupposes two things: (1)
that there is a disease, sickness, or hurt, and (2) that a person has been
given some type of a remedy (this is why he has the crutch).

Two questions immediately arise. First, what is this disease? Is it real
or imagined? And second, is the remedy the correct one for the disease?

With Christianity, God clearly states that the disease is sin, and that
the disease is real. It is not a psychological, imaginary hand-up in need
of a religious fix as Marx would propound. Rather, the remedy instead of
being a religious crutch, is a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Therefore, Christianity in one sense is a crutch. But it is more than a
crutch; it is the sure foundation, the truth of life.

If Jesus Christ be God and died on the cross for our sins and created us
to be in fellowship with God the Father through Him, then to call Him a
crutch would be like a light bulb saying to an electrical socket, "You are
my crutch." As a light bulb was created to function properly when inserted
into the socket, so we have been created to function properly in a
personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

[5]

. Marvin L. Lubenow writes:

The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of
God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as
basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution.
Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was
designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of
the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation. Obviously,
if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an
evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with
atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as
long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are
private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no
absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator,
Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. All are responsible to him. He has an agenda
that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the
image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is
very comfortable.?8?

To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of
Genesis and thereby to oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability
of His law. Evolution is simply the latest means our fallen race has
devised in order to suppress our innate knowledge and the biblical
testimony that there is a God and that we are accountable to Him (cf.
Romans 1:28). By embracing evolution, modern society aims to do away with
morality, responsibility, and guilt. Society has embraced evolution with
such enthusiasm because people imagine that it eliminates the Judge and
leaves them free to do whatever they want without guilt and without
consequences.

[6]

Either as cause or consequence, atheism and agnosticism are linked with a
corrupt life. Barnes writes:

The belief that there is no God is commonly founded on the desire to lead
a wicked life, or is embraced by those who in fact live such a life, with
a desire to sustain themselves in their depravity and to avoid the fear of
future retribution.? 15

[7]

Now when you get to the time of David, you meet atheists, and there were a
great many atheists by that time. David labels them, though. He says,
Ž?The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God?¡ (Psalm 14:1). The
word fool in the Hebrew means Ž?insane.?¡ The insane, the nutty
individual, is the one who is the atheist. Of course, he may be a Ph.D. in
a university, but heÿs a nutty individual. The Bible says he is insane. It
is insane for a man to say there is no God. A friend of mine had a
marvelous ministry with atheists. He was in a crowd one day where a
big-mouthed fellow was saying, Ž?I do not believe there is a God. I think
that when man dies, heÿs just like a dog. He dies and thatÿs it.?¡ This
friend of mine, a very courteous man, said, Ž?Did I understand you to say
that you donÿt believe there is a God??¡

Ž?Yes.?¡

Ž?Are you an atheist??¡

Ž?Yes.?¡

Ž?Well, I have a question to ask you. The Bible says that the fool, the
insane, is the one who says there is no God. Now either you were insincere
when you made the statement, you didnÿt really mean it, or else youÿre
insane. Would you tell me which way it is??¡

It has to be one way or the other when a man says there is no God. But,
you see, weÿve come a long way since Davidÿs day!

[8]

Atheists claim that there is no God. They contend that there is no God in
the world (as pantheism holds) and there is no God beyond the world (as
deism claims). Furthermore, there is no God who is actually both in the
world and beyond the world as theism claims, nor is there any
panentheistic God beyond the world who is related to the world as a mind
to body. There is no God of any kind, anywhere.

Of course, atheism is not merely a negative position. Most atheists do not
view themselves as antitheists but simply nontheists. As nontheists,
atheists offer a positive view of their own which they may call humanism,
materialism, naturalism, or positivism. Since we are primarily concerned
here with the question of whether there is a God and, if so, what kind of
God he is, we will consider the arguments and reasons given by selected
major atheists as to why they believe there is no God. Special concern
will be given as to why they believe there is no theistic God. In this
context it will be necessary to discuss the negative emphasis of atheism
as a world view denying the existence of God.

[9]

Atheism comes in many varieties. The term atheism covers a widely
divergent group of thinkers. There are traditional atheists who believe
that there never was, is, or will be a God (Jean-Paul Sartre is an
example).1 Then there is the mythological atheist like Nietzsche,2 who
believed that the God-myth was once alive, that is, it was a model men
believed and lived by, but that this myth died and is no longer workable.
Some years ago Thomas Altizer popularized another form of atheism which
may be called dialectical atheism.3 This view affirms the paradox that God
was once really alive but that he died in the incarnation and crucifixion
of Christ and that it has taken until modern times to realize that this is
so. Finally, there is what may be called semantical or linguistical
atheism (as in Paul Van Buren),4 which claims that God-talk is dead, that
is, that there is no cognitive meaning to religious language.

Since we are concerned here with metaphysical atheism, we will discuss
primarily the forms that provide some arguments denying that there is
really a God in and/or beyond the world now. Although it is a serious
thing to a believer in God to deny that he can talk meaningfully about
God, semantical atheism as such does not involve any denial that there may
be a God there who can somehow be felt or experienced. This view at least
leaves the door open to the fact that God exists and that he can in some
way be experienced. Hence, this view is not really metaphysical atheism.

Not all atheists claim knock-down-and-drag-out arguments against God. Like
theists, they claim varying degrees of certitude ranging from absolute
certainty to low degrees of probability. Many of the arguments, then, are
not offered as disproofs of God but merely as evidence against the
existence of a God. Other arguments are considered by their proponents as
definite disproofs of God. We will consider both types, attempting to put
the arguments in the strongest form possible.

Another important distinction to keep in mind is that atheism makes two
argumentative moves. First, it offers objections to the supposed grounds
upon which others believe in God. Since these arguments do not attempt to
disprove God but simply to refute the grounds upon which some men believe
in God, they will be considered in the next chapter as objections to
theism. Here we will consider only attempts to prove there is no God. The
following summary will indicate the major kinds of arguments for atheism
and the direction in which they go.

[10]


. Summary and Conclusion

Atheism provides some valuable correctives to and modifications of theism.
Many of its arguments either correct misconceptions some theists have of
God or of his relation to the world or else they expose contradictory
theistic concepts. Atheists have been active as well in contributing to
humanistic causes and earnest in scientific endeavors.

However, as a total world view atheism does not measure up. First, its
arguments are invalid and often self-defeating. Second, many atheistic
arguments are really reversible into reasons for believing in God.
Finally, atheism provides no solution to basic metaphysical questions
regarding the existence of the universe or the origin of personality and
the actualization of the world process. Atheists must believe that
something comes from nothing, that potentials actualize themselves, and
that matter generated mind. It seems much more reasonable to believe in a
God who made something where there was nothing, who actualized the
potentials that could not actualize themselves, and whose Mind formed
matter.

[11]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

? I.e. sickness, a sad tone

? Possibly, Contemplative, or Didactic, or Skillful Psalm

a Ps 10:4; 14:1?7; 53:1?6

b Rom 3:10

a Rom 3:11

1 Or acts wisely

b 2 Chr 15:2

a Rom 3:12

a Jer 4:22

1 Or dread

a Lev 26:17, 36; Prov 28:1

b Ps 141:7; Jer 8:1, 2; Ezek 6:5

2 Or possibly, those

c Ps 44:7

d 2 Kin 17:20; Jer 6:30; Lam 5:22

a Ps 14:7

1 Lit would be

2 Or restores the fortunes of His people

3 Or Jacob will rejoice, Israel will be glad

[1]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ps 53:1-6). LaHabra,
CA: The Lockman Foundation.

? 39 (53:Intro) In Psalm 14 the name Jehovah is used four time and Elohim
three times. Here the name Elohim is found seven times.

[2]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary
: Old and New Testaments (Ps 53:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[3]Lindsay, D. G. (1999, c1995). The ABC's of evolutionism : Ape-man,
batman, catwoman, and other evolutionary fantasies (the rest of the
stories). Dallas, TX: Christ for the Nations.

[4]MacArthur, J. (1994, c1996). Acts (326). Chicago: Moody Press.

[5]McDowell, J., & Stewart, D. D. (1993). Answers to tough questions.
Originally published: San Bernardino, Calif. : Here's Life Publishers,
c1980. Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

8 Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assesment of Human
Fossils (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 188-89.

[6]MacArthur, J. (2001). The battle for the beginning : The Bible on
creation and the fall of Adam (24). Nashville, TN: W Pub. Group.

? 15 (14:1) Barnes, Psalms, I:114.

[7]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary
: Old and New Testaments (Ps 14:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[8]McGee, J. V. (2001, c1988). The best of J. Vernon McGee : A collection
of his best-loved sermons, volume 1 (electronic ed.) (55). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers.

[9]Geisler, N. L. (1976). Christian apologetics. Includes index. (215).
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

1 See Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, pt. Four.

2 See Friedrich Nietzsche, Gay Science.

3 Thomas Altizer, The Gospel of Christian Atheism.

4 Paul Van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel.

[10]Geisler, N. L. (1976). Christian apologetics. Includes index. (215).
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

[11]Geisler, N. L. (1976). Christian apologetics. Includes index. (234).
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
JoelKatz
2007-07-31 21:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
God would never ask that, for today.
Irrelevant. Answer the question.
No, that's totally relevant. In other words, his own moral sense
allows him to know what decisions god would make. Which means he
doesn't need god to know what's right or wrong at all.

DS
MarkA
2007-07-31 22:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoelKatz
Post by MarkA
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
God would never ask that, for today.
Irrelevant. Answer the question.
No, that's totally relevant. In other words, his own moral sense
allows him to know what decisions god would make. Which means he
doesn't need god to know what's right or wrong at all.
DS
Though his statment demonstrates that God is unnecessary, as you point
out, he does evade the equally interesting question of why it would be
more/less moral for God to decree that you kill someone, versus a mortal
killing someone.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
So!
2007-08-01 01:51:25 UTC
Permalink
. Sexual Ethics - Shutting Down Opposition

Related Audio/Video Downloads

http://breakpoint.org/media/dkContent/6416/042407_BP.mp3

The Gay Agenda and Schoolkids

Once upon a time there was a handsome young prince. When he grew up, he
began searching for a wife, but could not find a princess he wanted to
marry. One day, he met another prince-and fell in love. The two men
married and lived happily ever after.

They must have been the only ones who did. When the fairy tale-which ended
with the newly married "couple" kissing-was read to Massachusetts first
graders, Christian parents were outraged.

Two sets of parents sued the Lexington school district, claiming that
district officials violated both state law and their civil rights by
allowing a teacher to read to their 6-year-olds a book that normalizes
homosexual love and marriage.

Not surprisingly-this is Massachusetts, after all-federal judge Mark Wolf
dismissed the lawsuit. Public schools, he wrote, are "entitled to teach
anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to
become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy."

I guess it is not possible to become a productive citizen without
embracing the teachings of radical gays.

Incredibly, the judge said parents did not even have a right to pull their
kids from classes that discuss and depict homosexual behavior. Allowing
kids to leave, the judge said, "could send the message that gays,
lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and,
therefore, have a damaging effect on those students."

This decision is so ghastly it is hard to know where to begin. Since when
did parents not have the right to control what their children are exposed
to when it comes to matters of sexuality? And what about the damaging
effect on kids who are taught ideas that conflict with their parents'
teachings?

If the school district is really committed to teaching about all kinds of
families, then why not give children a story about a prince who longs for
another prince, realizes his longings are disordered, undergoes reparative
therapy, and lives happily ever after-with a princess?

The real goal, of course, is normalizing homosexuality. The judge tipped
his hand on this when he said that children should be taught to "respect"
differences in sexual orientation.

The two families are appealing Judge Wolf's decision, and we ought to be
praying for their ultimate success. But we must also realize what is
really going on here.

When it comes to sin, humans have been playing the denial game ever since
the Fall. In Romans, Paul says that even pagans know God's moral law
because it is "written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing
witness."

That's why it is not enough for homosexuals to be tolerated; in order to
live with their own consciences, homosexuals demand unanimous assent that
homosexuality is a moral good. And that means silencing those who believe
that homosexuality is a disorder, and that homosexual behavior is a moral
sin.

You and I must fight back when homosexuals attempt to promote gay
"marriage" in public schools. But we must also reach out with compassion
to those ensnared by disordered sexual desires.

The Bible teaches that sin-and a guilty conscience-can be erased only by
the grace of God through faith in Christ.

By Chuck Colson 4/24/2007

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

For Further Reading and Information

Read Judge Mark Wolf's decision.

Denise Lavoie, "Judge Tosses Suit by Parents Who Objected to Talk of Gay
Marriage in Classroom," San Diego Union-Tribune, 23 February 2007.

Jonathan Saltzman, "Judge Dismisses Lexington Suit over School Lesson
Involving Same-Sex Couples," Boston Globe, 23 February 2007.

Patrick McIlheran, "State-Set Orthodoxies Make Schools a Cultural
Battlefield," Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 20 March 2007.

Call 1-877-322-5527 to request BreakPoint's "Speak the Truth in Love"
information packet (suggested donation $25), which includes CDs, research
papers, and articles on the risks of homosexual behavior and how to speak
to homosexual friends.

BreakPoint Commentary No. 040628, "Same-Sex 'Marriage' Goes to School: Out
of the Closet and into the Classroom."

J. Budziszewski, Written on the Heart (InterVarsity, 1997). Also get Dr.
Budziszewski's talk "Moral Issues We Wish Would Go Away" (CD).
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-10 16:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by So!
. Sexual Ethics - Shutting Down Opposition
Related Audio/Video Downloads
http://breakpoint.org/media/dkContent/6416/042407_BP.mp3
The Gay Agenda
Exists in the minds of homophobes.

snip
g***@yahoo.com
2007-08-10 16:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
Post by David Schwartz
Post by U2
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If someone put a bullet in your brain because god asked him to, would
that person have done anything wrong?
God would never ask that, for today.
Irrelevant. Answer the question.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
Not to mention the fact that Christians say that nobody knows the mind
of god.
JoelKatz
2007-07-31 21:17:32 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 28, 6:16 pm, "RU Liken IT Yet!"
Post by RU Liken IT Yet!
Post by David Schwartz
If someone put a bullet in your brain because god asked him to, would
that person have done anything wrong?
God would never ask that, for today.
I don't follow you. Are you saying that the use of force is never
justified, that is that complete pacifism is the only rational policy?
Or are you saying that even though the use of force is sometimes
justified, god would never suggest it?

If we can never get moral guidance from god, then your argument
collapses. That god may know or determine what is right and wrong is
of no use to use if we have no access to that knowledge or
determination.

This question goes right to the heart of your argument, you cannot
dodge it. If god decides what is moral, and we have access to that
decision, then if we believe god said that we should do something, we
must do it, no matter how wrong it seems to us.

DS
Scot
2007-07-30 16:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
Yes [Atheists], they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview. Why is it murder for one human being to
kill another human being, but it's not murder for a dog to kill another
dog? Why is it wrong for one group of randomly formed atoms to extinguish
the "life force" of another group of randomly formed atoms?
Excellent question. I'll try to answer it in another post, but first let me
turn the question around:

How do theists account for their moral worldview?
Is it:
God is the ultimate judge. God decides what is right
and wrong and God will punish those who do wrong
(either during their lives or after their death).
?
Well, as we look around the world we see that plenty of people do things
that we consider wrong, and we don't see anything happen to them. Maybe
God will punish them after their death... But that doesn't really stop
criminals from doing wrong while they are alive, does it?
John Baker
2007-08-06 23:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
We derive our moral worldview from respect for others. Something Christians
wouldn't understand.
Scot
2007-08-07 02:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Baker
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
We derive our moral worldview from respect for others. Something
Christians wouldn't understand.
Once upon a time, Christians had an idea:
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
That is a "respect for others" sort of thing.
Irv Hyatt
2007-08-07 14:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scot
Post by John Baker
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
We derive our moral worldview from respect for others. Something
Christians wouldn't understand.
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
That is a "respect for others" sort of thing.
Now merely a cliche for the christers. They don't have to respect anyone
because after they 'sin', Jesus forgives them. The main reason they are
full of hot air and armchair do-gooders.
Atheists don't need a cliche or a book to know it feels 'right' to be good
to others.
yowie
2007-08-07 21:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irv Hyatt
Post by Scot
Post by John Baker
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
We derive our moral worldview from respect for others. Something
Christians wouldn't understand.
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
Tsze-kung asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of
practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a
word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."
-The Analects of Confucius c500 BCE
Post by Irv Hyatt
Post by Scot
That is a "respect for others" sort of thing.
Now merely a cliche for the christers.
And a stolen one at that.
Post by Irv Hyatt
They don't have to respect anyone
because after they 'sin', Jesus forgives them. The main reason they are
full of hot air and armchair do-gooders.
Atheists don't need a cliche or a book to know it feels 'right' to be good
to others.
St. Jackanapes
2007-08-07 22:08:46 UTC
Permalink
yowie held us spellbound with...
Post by yowie
Post by Irv Hyatt
Post by Scot
Post by John Baker
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
We derive our moral worldview from respect for others. Something
Christians wouldn't understand.
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
Tsze-kung asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of
practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a
word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."
-The Analects of Confucius c500 BCE
Post by Irv Hyatt
Post by Scot
That is a "respect for others" sort of thing.
Now merely a cliche for the christers.
And a stolen one at that.
The entire fucking religion was purloined! Stolen, lock, stock & barrel.
--
St. Jackanapes
http://www.jackanapes.ws
============================
John Baker
2007-08-09 10:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scot
Post by John Baker
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
We derive our moral worldview from respect for others. Something
Christians wouldn't understand.
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
That is a "respect for others" sort of thing.
Actually, a Babylonian named Hammurabi had that idea - or was the
first to write it down and make it the foundation of the law of the
land, anyway. Christians "borrowed" it, along with most of the other
ideas that make up their patchwork quilt of a religion.

It's still a good idea, no matter who first thought of it.
Unfortunately, most Christians, at least most of the fundies, have
long since forgotten it.
Conspiracy of Doves
2007-08-09 15:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Baker
Post by Scot
Post by John Baker
Post by U2
The Atheist Debate
I received a letter from an atheist over the weekend. He claimed that it
was perfectly logical to be an atheist, that he was just as moral as any
Christian. I asked him this simple question: " Given the basic assumptions
of "militant atheism," if somebody put a bullet in your brain, would that
If you think that as an atheist that I do not believe murder is wrong then
you have no real understanding of what it means to be an atheist. The
entire term "militant atheism" is a non-sequitur invented to label the
people who do not wish to be forced to either sanction with their tax
dollars or to honor your prehistoric beliefs. We simply wish to live in a
free society without being pressed into accepting the silly beliefs and
practices that you do. However, I would fight just as hard for your right
to believe whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon
me. I also do not approve of your beliefs or lifestyle. I just realize
that I have no right to tell anyone how to live.
Nearly every atheist I've encountered does not get it. Yes, they are
(mostly) moral people. That's not the issue. I want to know how an atheist
accounts for his moral worldview.
We derive our moral worldview from respect for others. Something
Christians wouldn't understand.
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
That is a "respect for others" sort of thing.
Actually, a Babylonian named Hammurabi had that idea - or was the
first to write it down and make it the foundation of the law of the
land, anyway. Christians "borrowed" it, along with most of the other
ideas that make up their patchwork quilt of a religion.
It's still a good idea, no matter who first thought of it.
Unfortunately, most Christians, at least most of the fundies, have
long since forgotten it.
Confucius as well. Later than Hammurabi, but earlier than jesus.
Loading...