Questions With Answers

I have been asked a lot of great questions lately, this is one of them:

"God punishes us even though He knows we're going to make that mistake.  Why would a mother punish her son for not cleaning his room after telling him to, knowing that he won't because that's how he's always been?"

God is like any good dad, he punishes his children if they make a mistake.  Comparing God to a mother is very inaccurate.  God clearly told Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit but they did anyway.  We had a choice to obey God and we didn't take it.  We are responsible for the sin in the world today, God has a right to punish us.

I have thought a lot about the mother with the unorganized son.  If the son grows up to be a serial killer and goes to court for the tenth murder he has committed, the mother can't testify in his defense, "Don't blame him, he has always been this way."  That defense will obviously be overruled.  Therefore, the argument of the mother with the rebellious son is invalid.

Another argument against Christianity I have been presented with is this:

"God doesn't heal people, there are still millions of his 'children' suffering from blindness and other diseases.  Atheism is doing the same as God is, not changing reality."

Wouldn't that be cool?  Wouldn't it be cool if God just zapped everyone better?  If God is so powerful why doesn't it work that way? 

Well we could have chosen to have no diseases in the first place, then we got hungry for forbidden fruit.  Since we messed up Eden God gave us an alternative, Heaven.  God doesn't zap away diseases because He did something so much better.  He paid for all of our sins so we can have a perfect relationship with Him like we started out with.  No diseases, not the slightest imperfection can be found in Heaven.  We can choose the endless benefits of Heaven that God offers, or the wish for God to end punishment on us and zap everyone better right away.

God provides us a way to restore our relationship with Him, a perfect eternally clean slate.  What does atheism provide for us again?

God Doesn't Babel

In this post I will explain something I had a hard time with before I was a Christian.  Someone recently told me this:

"It seems from my point of view, God is a little selfish.  He constantly puts Himself first.  Please explain to me the moral of the story of the Tower of Babel?"

This would have mirrored my thoughts several years ago, then I met Jesus and he explained it to me.  Let us walk through the story of the Tower of Babel.

It starts with the first couple verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis:

"Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.  As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there."(Genesis 11:1-2, NIV)

So at that time the entire world spoke the same language, so there wasn't a market for translators yet.  Moving on:

"They said to each other, 'Come, let's make brick and bake them thoroughly.'  They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.  Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.'"(Genesis 11:3-4, NIV)

So these guys decided to make an empire with the cheapest materials possible and have a tower that's supposed to reach Heaven.  Let's see what God thinks about this.

"But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.  The Lord said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.  Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.'"(Genesis 11:5-7, NIV)

So God didn't like the people building a tower to Heaven, but why?  We now know that Heaven isn't inside this universe (as far as we can tell at least) so why did it even matter?  What mattered was what was inside the hearts of those people.  They were going to build an empire with a tower up to Heaven so they could be superior to everyone else.  They were going to build themselves up to look as powerful as God.  It wasn't long before them that Adam and Eve munched on the no-no fruit and brought sin into the world, they totally wrecked man's relationship with God because of their pride.  Now these dunderheads are potentially trying to restore their relationship with God with the same pride!

Whether they actually thought they were actually getting to Heaven or not, they still were building an empire so they wouldn't have to be scattered over all the earth like God commanded mankind to do at the begining of time.  Before the fall of man God commanded this:

" . . .  'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it'. . ." (Genesis 1:28, NIV)

There weren't a lot of people of earth at the time Babel was being built so there was still a lot of fruitful increasing and subduing to do.  God could have detested the tower because it would have turned out a lot worse if he hadn't confused the languages of those people, you never know.

Now for the rest of the story:

"So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.  That is why it was called Babel--because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world.  From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:8-9, NIV)

While thinking about this the other day I had a little epiphany.  The word "babel" was brought into the English language from the Bible.  Babel means a scene of noisy confusion, that's exactly what God turned that city into!

God had a just reason for stopping the construction of Babel whether it was a disobeyed command or too much pride on our part.  My life today is fine without Babel, I'm sure they got over it too. 

Our God isn't a selfish one, He is a selfless one.  He wants what is best for us, which is being in a relationship with Him, we messed that up because of the fall of man, He could have just left us then.  But He didn't.  Our God stayed with us and even sacrificed His only son for our sake.  This is why we are in such debt to Him.  This is why we don't have to pay it.  God gave us everything for nothing.  Eternal life for accepting a savior.  Our God is not a selfish one at all, aren't you glad?

All Because Of What Is "Right"

Many Atheist authors today will point the finger at Christianity and tell you how it is responsible for most of the conflict of history, talking about "how many people have died because of religion, all the massacres, martyrs, burnings of witches, etc. all because  of these religious ideas of what is 'right'" In this post I will explain the mass murders of history caused by Christians, then I will expose the many atheist mass murders of history.  Then we will compare the two and see which side really has the right to point fingers.

The Crimes of Christianity
First I will start with the Crusades.  Here is a little history lesson.  Before the rise of Islam, the region we now call the Middle East was mostly Christian.  Where Jesus was born, lived, and, crucified, was in that region, so the Middle East was very sacred to Christianity.  Muhammad's armies conquered Jerusalem and the Middle East as a whole because of Islam's call to jihad.  Then they pushed into Africa, then into Asia, and north into Europe.  They then conquered some of Italy and most of Spain, they overran the Balkans, and prepared for the final incursion that would bring the Christendom (as Europe was then called) under the rule of Islam.

More than two centuries after the Middle East was conquered by Islamic armies, the Christians strike back.  The pope and the dynasties of Europe that were ruling at the time rallied the Christians to attempt to take back the heartland of Christianity and defend it against the militant Islam.

This is what we now call the Crusades.  The term Crusades is not what the people actually in the Crusades called it, the term was a later invention.  These people were responding to Christs call to take up your cross and follow Jesus.  A lot of them put everything they had at risk, their rulers provided nothing for them.  They were expected to bring everything they needed for the journey.  They weren't in it for the gain because they came back poorer than they started.  They did loot and forage along the way, but only because they were providing what they needed to survive.

The Christians captured Jerusalem in 1099 and the First Crusade was a success.  They held it for several decades after that but the militant Islam reconquered Jerusalem in 1187.  The Crusades after that were fails.  Yet without the Crusades, the Western Civilization we live in today might have been completely overran by Islam.  There were some horrible things done in the Crusades that nobody can justify but they shouldn't define the Crusades as a whole.

Now I will move on to the Inquisition.  The Inquisition was a court of the Roman Catholic Church that was created to suppress heresy.  Contrary to popular belief,  it only had authority over Christians--not Jews.  The only Jews who came under the view of the Inquisition were Jews that had converted Christianity.  This was the case for many Jews since King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella issued an ordinance in 1492 that expelled all Jews from Spain.  For a Jew to stay in Spain he would have to convert to Christianity.  A lot of Christians suspected that these new Jews that had converted to Christianity weren't taking it very seriously.  But strangely enough, it was the Jews who complained the most about it.  The Jews complained that their buddies renounced their Judaism.  The Jews couldn't complain about it in Inquisition courts because Jews weren't under the authority of the Inquisition as I said before.

Most of the time the punishment dished out by the Inquisition courts were the equivalent of community service today, it was little things like fasting.  So how many people were actually executed in the Inquisition? Many historians have guessed from 1,500 to (at the absolute most) 4,000.  These deaths are all tragic but it must be remembered that these deaths were spread out over a period of 350 years.

Now we take a look at the Salem witch trials.  How many people died in the Salem witch trials?  There must have been hundreds or even thousands!  Sorry to break it to you, but it was actually less than twenty five.  Nineteen of them were sentenced to death and a couple others died in captivity.  These deaths are horrible ones but the Salem witch trials don't deserve the horror that they have perpetrated in the books and movies that were supposed to be based off them.

As for martyrs, I don't understand why it is a bad thing to die for something you know is true.  If you live radically for Jesus, isn't a radical death for Jesus usually the consequence?  Jesus died for me and I would be happy to die for him any day!

The Crimes of Atheism
Now I will focus on the crimes committed by leaders of atheist groups such as Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.  Stalin caused around 20 million deaths.  Hitler caused around 10 million murders, six million of them were Jews.  Mao caused around seventy million deaths.  Stalin and Mao's killings were done in peacetime (unlike the Crusades).

The killings of atheism trump the killings of Christianity no matter how you look at it.  The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials tally up to 200,000.  Since the population was lower in the past that would be the equivalent of one million deaths today.  These deaths caused by Christians over a 500 year period are only one percent of the deaths that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao caused in a few decades.

I think it is fair to say that Atheism, not Christianity, is the source of most of the conflict and deaths in history, all because of what was "right" in their eyes.

Fact: Morality Comes From God, Not YouTube

I was recently sent a propaganda video that argues that morality doesn't need God.  It even goes to great lengths to say that morality would even be better without God.

The video was pretty discouraging when I first watched it, but as I examined this video carefully word for word, I began to realize it wasn't so big and bad after all.

Here is the first flaw the video has:

• It explained a study that asked Christian subjects to report their own views, the views of God, and the views of the average American while having their brain activity scanned.  The results showed that thinking about divine views activated the same brain region as thinking about their own views.  The conclusion was that "when they believe themselves to be consulting a divine moral compass, theists may instead be doing what the rest of us do--searching their own conscience."

This statement is very true.  What the scientists didn't seem to understand is that the "divine moral compass" is the conscience.  We all have a divine moral compass, Christians and atheists alike.  C.S. Lewis explained it this way:  that conscience is nothing other than the voice of God within our souls.  It's the bridge that links creature to Creator.  Even the atheist hears the clarion call because even the atheist has morality at the core of his being, and while the atheist may have rejected God, God has not rejected him.

C.S. Lewis explains the conscience in his book Mere Christianity.  He says that the moral law isn't a herd instinct.  An instinct is like a desire for food.  We do have a desire to help others sometimes, and yes, it is a herd instinct, but the moral law or conscience is a desire to help whether you want to or not.  That isn't a herd instinct.

Imagine you see a man drowning in a river.  You will feel the instinct to help him, which is the herd instinct.  You will also feel the desire to stay away from danger.  C.S. Lewis says that you will feel a third impulse.  This impulse agrees with the instinct to help and suppressed the instinct to stay out of danger.  This is your conscience.  This is your moral compass.

Here is another false statement this video makes:

• "Whereas certain religions have used moral language to divide, control, and frighten people to obedience, there is a more appropriate and principled function to morality: To ease the challenge of coexistence. 

• In a world of finite resources, each of us with different interests and desires, societies in which individuals coordinate their different talents develop effective ways of promoting flourishing and harmonious living, while minimizing conflict and needless suffering, will tend to be happier, more peaceful, and more productive than those who don't".

On the contrary Christians can promote flourishing and harmonious living too.  Acts 4:32-35 tells about a community of believers who flourished, not by frightening and controlling people, but by sharing all that they owned.  The verses read:

"All the believers were one in heart and mind.  No one claimed any of his possessions were his own, but they shared everything they had.  With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.  There were no needy persons among them.  For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."(NIV)

As these verses showed, it's by selfless acts that promotes a flourishing society, but that doesn't even seem to register in the video.  This leads me to another fault in the video:

• "Sometimes causing harm is rationally permitted, like a medical surgery if there is a compensating benefit to our health, or acting in self defense."

This states that causing harm is permitted only if it benefits us.  What if someone gives a dying stranger one of your kidneys, because that person is in need of one?  Is this not moral because it doesn't benefit you?  What if you see a random lady whom you have never met being mugged and you stand up for your her by harming the mugger?  Is it immoral if you stand up for the lady and not yourself?

Of course not!  This video has no earthly idea what morality even is because most of morality's essence is about selflessness.  There is nothing in atheist logic to even permit selfless acts.  I don't mean herd instinct, which is helping another person because they are related to you.  I mean truly selfless acts, like saving a drowning man in a river (like mentioned earlier) although there is no benefit to you whatsoever.  We do selfless acts because our conscience tells us to.  Our conscience tells us to because our conscience is the connector from us to God.  God is a loving God.  Selfless acts are love-inspired.  Selfless acts fit perfectly into Christian logic because the biggest selfless act of all is what Christianity is based around.  God sent His only son down here to pay for all the selfish twisted things we do everyday.  God sacrificed His son to save selfish prigs like us from a death we deserve entirely.  It doesn't benefit God at all to have a relationship with us, we shake our fists at Him everyday!

Morality is nothing without love, therefore, morality is nothing without a loving God.  The video tries to tell you what is wrong and explain why it is wrong with logic.  This video epically fails at telling you what is right and good and why it is right and good.  Right and good acts come from a righteous and loving God.  Since the video is made by atheists, they try to have the logic on what is wrong but they fail because the don't have logic to explain the other side of morality:  what is right.

Now for the final fault I am willing to explain from this 13 minute waste of time we call a video:

• "Religion needs science, but science does not need religion."

This really had nothing to do with morality, they were just trying to smack Christians around.  They are very right in saying this and at the same time they are extremely wrong.  Let me explain.

Science and Christianity are, as Randy Jackson would call it, "very tight".  Science is completely dependent on Christianity.  There once was a really awesome dead guy named Francis Bacon.  He did a bunch of experiments and he developed a system for conducting experiments, we now call this the scientific method.  So Francis, the founder of the scientific method, was a very devout Christian, he even wrote treatises on Psalms and on prayer.  In the thirteenth century innovations and inventions were being developed left and right because of the scientific method.  The following century launched inventions such as the mechanical clock, the windmill, the waterwheel, the chimney, and eyeglasses.  Many centuries later I have clocks throughout my house and everyday I see houses  with chimneys.  Waterwheels and windmills are still used today and I know several people with glasses, I even used to wear a pair of them myself.

Throughout time many leading scientists were Christians:  Mendel, Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe, Dalton, Newton, Faraday, Kepler, Lemaitre, Maxwell, Kelvin, Planck, Pascal, Cuvier, Joule, Harvey, Herschel, Gassendi, Mersenne, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Leibniz, Lyell, Priestley, Lavoisier.

Without these great names modern science would be nonexistent.  Mendel was a monk in an Augustinian monastery, his work on heredity would become the base of the theory of evolution.  Georges Lemaitre was the first dude to propose the big bang theory as the origin of the universe.  Copernicus viewed his heliocentric theory as revealing God's grand scheme for the cosmos.  I could go on and on but I imagine you get the picture by now.

These scientists viewed science, not as a superior to Christianity, but as a way to decode the beautifully complex design that God breathed into the universe He created.  To them, science was a way to bring glory to God.  Somewhere along the line atheists must not have gotten this memo, there is no way to disprove God with science any way you slice it.  The laws of the universe are what science is based upon.  God made the universe, He is outside of it.  Therefore, the laws of the universe do not apply to Him.  The science that God created was made to glorify Him, He cannot be undermined by it.

Let me conclude this by saying that science needs Christianity because Christianity is the foundation on which science was built upon, but Christianity also needs science because science is a magnificent tool to glorify the Great Designer who crafted the universe and breathed all the laws into it.

I am including this post with the video this post is about (it would be pretty pointless if I didn't!) in case you honestly want to watch the thing.  There are several points I did not disprove that are represented in that video.  If you find a point in the video that you feel needs explaining, you can email me with the email address given in the About Me page, and I will respond to you with an explanation.

Christianity With Benefits

I have recently been presented with a simple yet troubling question that has been branded a flaw to Christianity:

"If Jesus could heal a blind person that he happened to meet, then why not heal blindness?"

It's a great mind teaser, isn't it?  Why doesn't God heal blindness?  Why does God allow suffering at all if He is so great?

It all started when Adam and Eve munched on the forbidden fruit.  God laid out the consequences (in Genesis 3:16-19) like the good Celestial Daddy He is.  Suffering and sin came into the world and it all went downhill from there.  God isn't going to take those consequences away because we are still very sinful and imagine what would happen if He did; we would all become more corrupted than we already are because unless we get to Heaven our relationships will not be restored with God.

Now I would like to point out a flaw to atheism:  Where is atheism when things go wrong?

Suffering doesn't devastate the mind, it devastates the heart.  A cancer patient doesn't want a theory for why he has cancer; he just wants to get better.  That blind man didn't want a theory for why he was blind; he just wanted Jesus to make him see again.  Christianity helps people cope with suffering while atheism doesn't.  Jesus offers hope while atheism offers nothing.

Why does suffering matter to atheists?  Not that atheists feel the devastation of suffering any less than Christians, but if there is no God, than materialism comes into play.  Materialism is the belief that everything is just a combination of molecules.  We share the same molecules as a wall or the sediment in a stream.  It must be a one in a million chance that hundreds of thousands of molecules could come together as to create something that lives and breathes, for that matter, even as complex as a human!  This is a very high held belief of atheists.  If this is true then we shouldn't respond to suffering.  A mother shouldn't object to her baby dying no more than a tree should object to a withering seed, because after all, we are all just a bunch of matter!

You must think I am being heartless; this is because evil does exist.  If evil exists there must be a good to go along with it, since after all, evil is just twisted good (as explained in my previous post).  If good and evil exist there must be some sort of standard for us to tell the difference between them, some sort of morality.  I don't know what other than God would be better as that standard.

We had become so distant from our God that He had to send His only son down here to die for us.  To die for you.  To die for me.  Jesus healed that blind man (in Mark 8:22-26) to show who he was, so we could be saved.  Jesus had to do miracles like that to contrast against all the suffering that we caused.  He had to show his power to the world, not as a magician or physician, but as a savior.  I think it would be appropriate to conclude that the point that God didn't take away all the suffering in the world is a lot more beneficial to Christianity than it is to atheism don't you?