What Atheists Believe: What would you add?

June 29, 2009

Mark P. of Proud Atheist provided a list of what atheist believe. ”The list can be read here. Mark asks his readers, “What would you add?”

How about these:

Atheists believe it is okay to seize snippets of our sacred book and use them to smear God and His people without any regard for context. Why not at least examine the context first?

Atheists believe in love so long as it doesn’t involve people of faith. At least that has been my experience.

Atheists believe in kindness so long as it is not directed towards people of faith. A quick visit to Proud Atheist will attest to that.

Atheists believe in family unless you are of the family of God.

Atheists believe (or at least some do) that people of faith are fair game for ridicule and scorn.

Atheists believe in a woman’s right to choose the fate of her unborn child.

Atheists believe unborn children have no rights.

Atheists believe that creationism is a fairytale.

Atheists believe in the fairytale of evolution.

Atheists believe that faith in God is silly.

Atheists believe our ancestors were monkeys.

Atheists believe there is no evidence for God.

Atheists believe the non-evidence of a missing link. Atheists do have faith after all!

Atheists believe a person is hateful if they do not support the homosexual lifestyle. I would like to think this is not true of all atheists.

Atheists believe that it is natural for a person to be bisexual.

Atheists believe they will never bow their knee to the God of the universe. I believe they are wrong.

And more importantly, atheists still have time to reconsider the damage they are doing to others who might actually be interested in honestly examining the Christian faith and exploring the depth of God’s love!

Atheists should either learn what Christianity is or leave it alone.

Disclaimer: This list is compiled from my own experience with atheists and does not necessarily represent the beliefs of all atheists on every point.


Atheism: The Product of a Growing Liberal Agenda

June 25, 2009

Social networking via the Internet has rapidly become the most popular way in which people who share common interests come together. People form all over the world can share their ideas, struggles, and common questions regarding anything from sleep apnea to menopause. Whatever one’s interests, there is likely a social Internet group out there eager to welcome a new member. But there is one social group that is growing particularly fast, especially among younger generations (or so it seems), where its members will deny that they anything in particular in common with one another. They are atheist, and as much as they deny commonality they have one thing very much in common, and that one thing is the very thing that brings them together in cyberspace.

I had always thought the one thing all atheists have in common is an absence of belief in a deity. I was wrong; they do have that in common, but it is not what compels them to seek out one another. What induces them to gather on the Internet is a strong inclination towards a far left liberal agenda, and their sworn nemesis is conservative Christianity. Although atheism has been around for several millennia, it has never before developed into a cult – but now that they have a distinct common cause, that is beginning to change.

If you troll around the Internet exploring atheist blogs you might pass them off as just spouting anti-religious gibberish. But if you take the time to look a little closer you will find next to nothing about anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu or anti-anything other than Christian. Why? Because Christians represent what they truly hate: conservative values.

As part of my research I decided to enter into a discussion on an atheist blog. I decided to comment on a post called, (Still) Wondering Why Christians Visit Atheist Blogs on a blog run by “Mark P.” called “Proud Atheist.” I stated that I was amused by the apparent contradiction between the title of the post and the fact that they used Christian tags to promote it. I also said that I had no interest in debating them, I simply wanted to understand their common bond. Mark, the owner, made it perfectly clear that I was not welcome there so I decided to not comment further. But then another atheist piped in with this:

“Another fundie without a clue. There is no debate you asshat. You have no valid claims, no evidence and your harmful beliefs are delusional. Your cult’s faith is belief in something without evidence and which is not true. Sorry, your entire life’s foundation is based on lies and Iron Age superstitions. The only waste of time is your life.”

Asshat? That was new. I thanked the brusque commenter for opening his/her heart to me like that, but the apparent literalist informed me that his/her heart is nothing more than a muscle that pumps blood. Personally, I didn’t see it as anything more than that either. However, I interpreted this commentator’s personal shot at me as an invitation to join the discussion, so I did.

The first thing I discovered from the comments was a common belief among the atheists that Christianity is dangerous, so I wanted to know why they think this. It soon became apparent that the real issue was not their dislike of Christian doctrine, which I would later find out they no nothing about, but rather their opposition to conservative values as illustrated in the following comment from one of the atheists.

“If a Christian believes the bible is literal they are much more willing to do violence. It is these types of views that make Christianity dangerous. It is also the lack of words from the liberals and moderates to stop the hate of the more conservative. I know some of that is the liberal and moderates fault.”

Another atheist was upset because we Christians oppose free speech in the form of obscene lyrics and videos.

So I got it; it’s a liberal verses conservative thing. So if these liberal atheists want to used the excuse that the Bible teaches Christians to be violent in order to oppose our conservative values, they aught to be able to show from the Bible where that violence is being taught – but they cannot.

I began to prod them for a focused discussion on orthodox Christian doctrine; the very doctrine that was delivered to the apostolic church (first and early second century Christians), but found no takers. Instead they pointed to things like the Inquisitions – never mind the fact that most of the victims were Christians, a fact that didn’t seem to matter to them. Some of them claim to know the Bible better than most Christians yet they lacked any actual ability to discuss our basic doctrine. One of them claimed to have been educated in a “faith school” for a number of years. She wanted to know what brand of Christianity I was and when I pointed to the apostolic church saying, “There is no brand of Christianity there,” she thought I was a member of the apostolic church. That, along with allusions of Jesus being born on the 25th of December and a mention of three wise men, was all I needed to confidently conclude she had no idea what Christianity teaches.

I addition, the two hottest topics of our discussion happen to be two of the hottest topics of the liberal agenda: abortion and homosexual rights. In fact, when I stated that homosexuality is not natural, the Christian-educated atheist replied:

“You believe that homosexuality is wrong. You are wrong. You have proven yourself to be repugnant in my eyes with that one statement.”

From there she went on to tell me (finally) why conservative Christians are evil and dangerous:

“If you give food to a hungry man and also pass on the “word of God” and that man is gay there may be negative feelings stirred in him about his validity, his right to be who he is. That’s evil.”

And that is what it really comes down to. They know little or nothing of our doctrines; their only gripe against liberal Christians is that they don’t speak out enough against conservative Christians; and they believe Christianity is dangerous because of our stance on social issues. The fact that blogs like Proud Atheist are growing in popularity is not because atheists have found a happy place to mingle, it’s because they are part of a rapidly growing cult of anti-Christian anti-conservative far left liberals.

Critical Questions for Adherents of Sola Scriptura: My Answers

June 9, 2009

The following questions are asked by Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, in one of his recent newsletters published on his website. The questions challenge the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. There are three general areas in which Martignoni disputes Sola Scriptura: Logic, History, and Scripture. This post will answer Martignoni’s five questions from the perspective of logic.

1. Where did the Bible come from?

We believe the New Testament was orally preached to the first believers. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to various churches, which were compiled as early as the late first or early second century and circulated among Christians. Along with the Pauline Corpus the four Gospels were compiled by the mid second century along with First Peter, Jude, Revelation, and two of John’s letters.

It is certain that 22 of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament were well rooted in the ancient Christian church of the first two centuries. There is no record of these 22 books ever being disputed or doubted until 150 years later in the fourth century when some disputed the book of Jude. Even if we move Jude out of the list of undisputed books, we still have 21 books of the New Testament that were considered authoritative Scripture in the early church.

2. What authority do we rely on for our belief that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God?

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) states that the Bible is the only infallible authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. It does not claim to come from the Bible as though the apostles could have known the scope of its contents. Their calling was to lay the foundation of the church and in so doing left their writings to continue their work in these last days.

Nevertheless, if a person believes the Gospel message and puts their trust in the Bible as the word of God, it does not mean they profess the entire Bible to be inerrant or even inspired. Every believer who draws closer to Christ will gain understanding and insight into the more difficult areas of the Bible. Gaining biblical understanding, however, is not something that is accomplished in isolation. The body of Christ has structure and organization. “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:11-13)

Some things may never be understood to the point of an individual being able to honestly say that the Bible is inerrant in its entirety. As the formally blind beggar said to the Pharisees who accused Jesus of being a sinner, “Whether he is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I know, that though I was blind, now I see.” (Jhn. 9:25) When believers draw closer to Christ they begin to understand the harmony of the Scriptures, which in turn enables them to gain trust in its contents – even if they know little or nothing of its history.

As Christians mature in the faith it becomes evident that the authority of the Bible is God Himself. When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Son of the living God, Jesus answered saying, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Mat. 16:17) And so it is with all who put their faith in Christ!

3. Is there a list of books in the Bible, which tells us which books should be in the Bible?

This question is obviously meaningless. Catholic apologists formulate it in order to set up what they believe to be a trap of contradiction for Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately for them, Sola Scriptura claims nothing of the kind. It would be a waist of time for any Catholic to use this tactic. Sola Scriptura is not a biblical doctrine; it is a doctrine born out of the Reformation to protect faithful Christians from the corrupt traditions and brutal spiritual oppression of the Catholic hierarchy.

4. What authority decided the disputes among Christians as to which books should and should not be considered inspired Scripture?

Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, history has provided no evidence that twenty of them were ever disputed. These twenty books alone, which include the four Gospels, all of Paul’s epistles except Hebrews, Acts, First Peter and First John are enough to validate the Bible as authoritative. The remaining seven books were scrutinized thoroughly in the early church and found to be acceptable. Anyone familiar with the Bible can determine for himself or herself whether these books harmonize with the other twenty. I don’t think one would find many believers who find them objectionable.

5. What authority prevents me from disagreeing with the canon of Scripture as we currently have it and putting my own Bible together?

The only people in history who have ever done that are those who hold themselves as their authority. Our authority is Christ!

Once Saved Always Saved: Is it illogical?

June 2, 2009

From Catholic Apologist John Martignoni’s newsletter #118:

Every believer in once saved always saved that I have ever met, also believes that there are those out there who think they are saved, but really are not – the faux believers, as I call them. So, ask anyone who believes in OSAS these questions (this is from an actual conversation):

Question: Are there people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?

Answer: Yes, there are.

Question: Are you saved?

Answer: Yes, I am.

Question: How do you know you’re not one of those people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?

Answer: I know in my heart that I am saved.

Question: Wouldn’t someone who thinks they’re saved, but really aren’t saved, say the same thing?

Answer: I suppose so.

Question: Then how do you know you’re really saved?

Answer: I just know.

Question: How do you know?

Answer: I just do.

The whole point of this line of questioning is that, if it is possible to think you’re saved, but not really be saved, then no one can have eternal security – no one can know for sure that they are saved – because anyone who thinks they’re saved could actually be one of those who think they are but really aren’t. As you ask these questions, I guarantee you will not be able to keep from smiling as the folks you’re talking to can do nothing but go ‘round and ‘round in a circle of illogic.

That last sentence provides a little insight into the character of this particular Catholic apologist, don’t you think?

Martignoni can’t seem to figure out how a believer can believe they are saved. He apparently has no confidence in his own faith, ells why would he be so mystified? Is it really so odd for a believer in Jesus Christ to believe he is saved? Is it illogical? Let’s compare the logic of someone believing they are saved with one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church: Holy Matrimony.

Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church is a sacrament that rightly depicts and represents the relationship between Christ and His church (true believers). Fr. Thomas Richstatter, an expert in liturgy and sacramental theology stated:

“Christian marriage is the sacrament which shows us God’s desire to be one with us.” .”1

In addition, the Catholic Church does not believe that a Christian marriage can be ended. Richstatter further declares:

“The Church does not want to say that a sacramental marriage comes to an end because we consider the love of the husband and wife to be a sign of God’s unending love for us.
God’s love for us can never end in divorce. God is faithful even if we are not. The Church desires that even if one of the partners of a marriage is faithless to the marriage bond, the other, by remaining faithful, gives a powerful witness to the community of the way God loves us.” (ibid)

Amen to that! God is faithful even when we are not. If we truly possess a loving relationship with Him, even though we are not always faithful to His commandments, He promises never to forsake us. (Heb. 13:5) But what becomes of couples who are not really committees to each other; their marriages will surly fail. In this situation, the Catholic Church may provide and annulment – “a legal declaration that a valid sacramental marriage never existed.” (ibid)

In the Catholic Church marriage represents God’s love for His people. The relationship is either permanent or it never really existed. But when it comes to our relationship with God, all this seems to go out the window for Martignoni. When a groom says his vows and believes in his heart that he truly will commit to them, he knows he is committed to his bride. But when a groom harbors doubt in his heart he knows he is not committed, even though he may say, “I do.”

A person who says he is saved is not necessarily the same as a person who truly believes they are saved. Both say it, one knows it. It is not possible for us to judge the heart of another. But the Catholic Church, which appears to grasp the sanctity of marriages, should not be confused by the idea that one can know they are saved. One is either committed to God or they are not.

In John 15, Jesus tells us to abide in Him. We do that through love which enables us to obey His commandments. And when we unwillingly fail to keep His commandments, He is our advocate with the Father who is quick to forgive because we are covered by Christ’s blood. So a person who loves God will cherish their relationship with Him, and by Him they will be nourished and bear fruit. Jesus promises that those who bear fruit will not ever be cut off, but pruned so that they might bear more fruit. But those, like the doubtful groom who bear no fruit, will be cut off.

Although we cannot tell by simply asking someone if they are saved if they really are, the person who professes their salvation knows deep down inside where he stands, whether he is able to face that reality or not.

Any persons that doubt another’s ability to know they are saved must have doubts as to their own salvation. Perhaps that should be their cue to refocus their criticism from others to themselves.

1. http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0596.asp