This is dedicated to my first Assembly of God youth pastor, Greg Black, who shared the true gospel with me almost 40 years ago in Byesville, Ohio.

Facebook’s Evid3nc3 (E3[1]) is a bright and ambitious young man raised in an Assembly of God church whose aggressive and unrelenting efforts to reach his peers would be the envy of most any youth pastor.  Except for one thing: he proselytizes not for his youth group or the Lord, but his most cherished belief: his atheism. The videos in his series have been watched over a hundred-thousand times, possibly by kids in your youth group. Updated and Corrected:  Someone using his ID has labored at posting links to his videos on scores of various sites unrelated to atheism and he has developed a huge following among skeptics.

In the video below he talks about getting saved[2] during a Royal Rangers meeting, his service for the Lord, his experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (with the evidence of speaking in tongues), and his walk with God.

Introduction to YouTube Video: Why I am no longer a Christian. 

A short but comprehensive look into my life as a Christian (which spanned 15 years) to prove to Christians that I was a genuine born-again, Holy Spirit baptised, and deeply committed Christian who had a strong relationship with Jesus Christ.

In a debate with a reformed Christian, E3 listed four signs to try and prove his conversion to Christ was “meaningful and touching”:

-speaking in tongues

-speaking to Jesus

-feeling God’s presence

-feeling God’s guidance

Indeed, the expression of his personal testimony might lead typical youth leaders to believe the kid was indeed a real Christian no different from the young people in their own youth groups. But those leaders would be wrong.  They have it backwards.  If his testimony is indistinguishable from teens in your youth group, it’s because they aren’t likely saved either!

If you were an A/G pastor or youth pastor, what would you tell E3, someone raised in a Christian home, who experienced all your church has to offer but chose instead to pursue not just unbelief, but to become an unevangelist?   What would you do to bring him and others like him back to the church? More to the point, what can you and I learn from this atheist?

First, we should recognize that all of our efforts to make church more relevant by making the music hip or the worship modern is wasted energy.  Having fun doesn’t work as an evangelistic tool, either. You will never out-relevant the world.  Besides, neither fun nor contemporary music ever saved anybody.  Only Jesus saves.

Second, we should watch this video and some of E3’s other videos very carefully.  It is essential this atheist prove to you he was a real Christian. But when you compare E3’s experience with the Bible, you will find his Christianity wanting. If you believe he was a Christian, perhaps your own understanding of the gospel is suspect.

Here are eight fatal flaws in E3’s view of salvation. This lack may also help explain why many of the most active teenagers in your church have never been truly saved, though they may appear so:

No Mention of the Law of God. There is nothing in E3’s testimony about the Law of God and the unbeliever’s relation to it.  Though he mentions the Ten Commandments in one of his videos, he claims to have kept them since his youth (probably unknowingly mirroring the experience of the rich young man mentioned in Matthew 19).   How many of our young people do not know the law of God in its fullness and therefore think they have kept it?  They have a superficial righteousness obtained by the Pharisees, but lack the inward righteousness demanded by a Holy God and unobtainable except by the grace of God in Christ Jesus.

Grace and Mercy From God Are Not Necessary. Without the law, there is no knowledge of sin (Romans 3:19).  E3 almost totally ignores sin. Though he says his sins were forgiven, there is no acknowledgement he was a rebellious and wicked sinner, a mortal enemy of God who would put God to death if he could.  Salvation was a response to just asking, not an act of God’s grace and merciful kindness.   But where there is no grace, there is no salvation.

Repentance by Men Is Disregarded.  Although E3 mentions sin, its heinous character is not recognized nor is the need to simultaneously turn to God and from sin even contemplated.  When sin is minimized, so is the significance of Christ’s death on the Cross.

No Reason Given Why He Needed a Savior. The law of God is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24), not some standard we can reach to prove we are saved.  He may claim he believed in Christ, but he did not believe the Savior and Lord of Scripture. No savior, no salvation.

No Reference to the Righteousness of Christ. But it is the righteousness of Christ that gains us access by faith to God (Romans 5:18f, I Corinthians 1:30). The Lord is our righteousness (Phil. 3:9).  “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (II Corinthians 5:21). 

No Talk of the Cross of Christ and the Resurrection. How can we even call it a testimony if there is no mention of the atonement? He could just as easily be a follower of Mohammed, Joseph Smith or Buddha. The cross is where our sins were nailed; the resurrection is the hope of new life. E3 offers a bloodless Christianity and therefore it is a lifeless Christianity.  Without the preaching of the cross, there is no salvation.

Salvation is only personal and subjective.  Because E3 is an atheist, he must claim to be a real Christian without any reference to the work of God and Christ.[3]  It must all be about himself: what he did, how he believed, what he experienced.  There is precious little, if any, about salvation as the Bible teaches.  Take a poll of your young people.  Have them explain salvation to you or give their testimonies.  You may be shocked at the answers you get.  E3 wants people to “deconvert”, to realize that all of your experiences were just personal experiences.  God (because he does not exist) had nothing to do with it.

No Discussion of the Miracle of Salvation.  Although the Assemblies of God, as a denomination, believes miracles occur today, E3’s “salvation” and “sanctification” are totally natural.  He made a decision to become a Christian and followed it with a daily decision to serve Christ (for a season).   But this is not the gospel.   Decisional conversion is the kind introduced by Charles Finney in the 1800’s[4].  He too denied the miraculous in salvation saying “there is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature[5]. The problem with Finney’s approach is not that it does not work, but that it does.  You can you use all kinds of tricks, ploys and methods to talk people into becoming a “Christian”. But there is nothing supernatural in making a decision.  E3 might as well have decided to become a Republican today and a Democrat tomorrow.  He cannot as an atheist claim his salvation was supernatural, because he doesn’t believe God exists.  Though he claims he was born-again there is no explanation of regeneration and he knows nothing of it, for it is a miracle of God.

The gospel is so much more than what is offered most young people today.  They are instead offered a sanitized version of the world’s fun and values, as demonstated by the comments of a youth evangelist in a recent article in the New York Times hinted at:

Outside the arena in Amherst, the teenagers at Mr. Luce’s Acquire the Fire extravaganza mobbed the tables hawking T-shirts and CD’s stamped: “Branded by God.” Mr. Luce’s strategy is to replace MTV’s wares with those of an alternative Christian culture, so teenagers will link their identity to Christ and not to the latest flesh-baring pop star.

A friend of mine who attends Christian Rock band festivals tells me he likes some of the music, but the concerts differ little from those of the world: encouraging young people to acquire Christian tattoos, pierce their bodies and generally serve the Lord while looking like the devil.   Paul Washer explains why a sermon he preached at a youth convention (shown below) was not so well received: “We need men who will…fight…and you are not going to stand up against the world, you are not going to be able to stand up against a….”churchianity” in America…without people really, really coming down on you…but it’s worth it….because the gospel is at stake, the souls of people are at stake, the glory of God is at stake”.

What is needed is not more imitation of the world which seems relevant but will damn souls to hell. We must offer young people a full gospel: one that talks about the law, grace, sin, the righteousness of Christ the Savior, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the need for a miracle: the miracle of being born again.

To my youth pastor friends.  Let me warn you and encourage you.  If you begin to preach these things, attendance in your youth group my dry up.  You may lose your job.  But the true winning of souls will accompany the true preaching of the gospel.  It is why you are called.

P.S. Chris, if you are out there, please listen below to the gospel you should have gotten at your church, or possibly got but didn’t hear.


It almost goes without saying that everything I say applies to every youth group and church that has allowed the world to distract them from preaching the gospel.  I have so many Assembly of God brethren whom I count among my dearest friends.

[1] Chris Redford is apparently his name, but since he does not use that name on the videos he produces or any of his varied posts around the internet, I will use a shortened form of his YouTube ID here.

[2] He at first claims to have been saved several times, but later dubs a clarification that he was really just rededicating his life. Why he believed he needed to clarify an in-house dispute among Christians was odd to say the least.  Can you picture two atheists hiding behind closed doors debating whether Calvinism or Arminianism is truly Biblical or whether or not infants should be baptized?

[3] If you read the debates he has with Christians on the internet, you will see he gets angry if you say he wasn’t a Christian at all. I find it almost humorous that he must make the case he was really a Christian in order to prove that God does not exist. What is not funny is the fact that many currently professing Christians do the same thing: Try to prove they are Christians, but totally ignore the actual propositions of Scripture.

[4] Although honored by many in the evangelical church, he was undoubtedly a heretic with too many false teachings about the gospel to go into here.  Perhaps a good start would be Phillip R Johnson’s A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: How Charles Finney’s Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement (1999). In Finney’s Lectures on Systematic Theology, for example,   he explicitly denied the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as our own, the central doctrine of justification when he wrote:  “But if Christ owed personal obedience to the moral law, then his obedience could no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us. He was bound for himself to love God with all his heart and soul and mind and strength, and his neighbor as himself, He did no more than this. He could do no more. It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf.” 

[5] Johnson, Ibid

 

78 comments
  1. “his most cherished belief: his atheism.”

    Wrong: my most cherished *value* (not belief), is the pursuit of the truth, no matter what it is. That is what I am trying to spread with my videos.

    “He labored at posting links to his videos on scores of Christian Music lyrics sites and has developed a huge following among skeptics.”

    That is a completely false charge. I have never placed links to my videos anywhere but my own personal Facebook page and the website for a local atheist group. I do not force my beliefs on anyone. Anyone who wants to know can know, anyone who doesn’t want to doesn’t have to. I would appreciate you not slandering me.

    “Here are eight fatal flaws in E3’s view of salvation.”

    These “eight fatal flaws” are ludicrous. Why? Because you aren’t criticizing anything I *did* say about my Christian life. You are criticizing me for what I *didn’t* say. You then make the assumption that just because I didn’t mention these beliefs, that I didn’t have them.

    I believed in every single doctrine on sin, repentance, and salvation you mentioned here. I just didn’t mention it in the series because I didn’t know that I needed to. I assumed that since I SAID I was a Pentecostal Christian in the Assemblies of God, it would be pretty darn obvious that I believed in the very basic tenets of repentance and salvation that all evangelical Christians believe in.

    I didn’t know I had to lay it out for you that, yes, I obviously believed the basic and obvious doctrine of salvation from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross in the Gospel message that any 8 year old in the Assemblies of God could tell you about. I was trying to show the depth of my relationship with God beyond these basic tenets of salvation by focusing on the stories about speaking in tongues and my personal relationship with Jesus.

    I have heard the Gospel message repeated hundreds of times throughout my life and so have most Americans. If you really think that you can brush away the very real problems with the Christian belief system by ignoring them and repeating the Gospel message one more time, you are mistaken.

    You are right: your churches will become empty. Because the strategy of repeating the Gospel message over and over again to a society that already knows it by heart is empty and robotic. It’s like stubbornly using a hammer over and over again when what you need is a screwdriver. It is the wrong tool for the job. It’s tired, it’s overused, and it’s not convincing.

    What our society needs is honesty. What our society needs is a real pursuit of the truth. What our society needs is real solutions. Regurgitating a dogma conceived by humans thousands of years ago in Iron Age Palestine is not what we need.

    1. “Because the strategy of repeating the Gospel message over and over again to a society that already knows it by heart is empty and robotic”

      The preaching of the gospel is the power of God unto Salvation to everyone that believes. It is foolishness to you because you don’t believe it, not the other way around.

      “Iron Age”

      You have fallen into the fallacy that the basic truths of life have somehow changed since then; they have not. Your choice of words shows more than disbelief, you are full of animosity towards Christ and His Church. “Regurgitating…It’s tired, it’s overused, and it’s not convincing.” Your opinion and attitude is basically irrelevant to whether Christ is God in the flesh or not.

      You are not pursuing truth. If you were, you would be pursuing Christ, because He is the Truth. You will never find truth apart from Christ.

      1. What basic truths of life were discovered in the Iron age that hold true today?

        Last I checked we only began to understand life and its diversity with Darwin.

        What exactly does it mean that “Jesus is the truth?”. Truth about what? This sort of figurative speech really has little meaning in the real world.

        Also, how exactly was Evid3nc3 displaying animosity? His words were polite and direct. It appears that the persecution card is being played early in the exchange.

      2. I didn’t say basic truths were discovered during the Iron Age. I implied no basic truths about life have been “discovered” after then. “Iron Age” was E3’s term, not mine.

        Human life had a definite beginning. Men behave wickedly. They often try in their own efforts to live righteously without resorting to God. They fail. God is still sovereign. He still rules from Heaven. Men still believe the gospel and are saved and sanctified. The Bible is still true.

      3. Well, to be fair you called them “basic truths of life”. If by that you mean moral behavior or moral ethics then that is something else entirely.

        How would you define wicked behavior? Is it wicked because your deity says so or for some other reason?

        If we must resort to your God to define wicked behavior then he himself must also not be guilty of the same behavior then, yes?

        I don’t think that you have honestly given this alot of thought.

      4. Wicked is anything which is contrary to the Truth about Christ and the Law of God as revealed in Scriptures. Yes, it is wicked because God says so, but more importantly, it is wicked because it is contrary to His nature.

        God is not, of course, guilty of any wicked behavior.

    2. I think everybody is missing the point…

      This is an awesome achievement!

      Somebody who was AoG finally read a book and went to college!

  2. “his most cherished belief: his atheism.”

    Wrong: my most cherished *value* (not belief), is the pursuit of the truth, no matter what it is. That is what I am trying to spread with my videos.

    “He labored at posting links to his videos on scores of Christian Music lyrics sites and has developed a huge following among skeptics.”

    That is a completely false charge. I have never placed links to my videos anywhere but my own personal Facebook page and the website for a local atheist group. I do not force my beliefs on anyone. Anyone who wants to know can know, anyone who doesn’t want to doesn’t have to. I would appreciate you not slandering me.

    “Here are eight fatal flaws in E3’s view of salvation.”

    These “eight fatal flaws” are ludicrous. Why? Because you aren’t criticizing anything I *did* say about my Christian life. You are criticizing me for what I *didn’t* say. You then make the assumption that just because I didn’t mention these beliefs, that I didn’t have them.

    I believed in every single doctrine on sin, repentance, and salvation you mentioned here. I just didn’t mention it in the series because I didn’t know that I needed to. I assumed that since I SAID I was a Pentecostal Christian in the Assemblies of God, it would be pretty darn obvious that I believed in the very basic tenets of repentance and salvation that all evangelical Christians believe in.

    I didn’t know I had to lay it out for you that, yes, I obviously believed the basic and obvious doctrine of salvation from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross in the Gospel message that any 8 year old in the Assemblies of God could tell you about. I was trying to show the depth of my relationship with God beyond these basic tenets of salvation by focusing on the stories about speaking in tongues and my personal relationship with Jesus.

    I have heard the Gospel message repeated hundreds of times throughout my life and so have most Americans. If you really think that you can brush away the very real problems with the Christian belief system by ignoring them and repeating the Gospel message one more time, you are mistaken.

    You are right: your churches will become empty. Because the strategy of repeating the Gospel message over and over again to a society that already knows it by heart is empty and robotic. It’s like stubbornly using a hammer over and over again when what you need is a screwdriver. It is the wrong tool for the job. It’s tired, it’s overused, and it’s not convincing.

    What our society needs is honesty. What our society needs is a real pursuit of the truth. What our society needs is real solutions. Regurgitating a dogma conceived by humans thousands of years ago in Iron Age Palestine is not what we need.

    1. “Because the strategy of repeating the Gospel message over and over again to a society that already knows it by heart is empty and robotic”

      The preaching of the gospel is the power of God unto Salvation to everyone that believes. It is foolishness to you because you don’t believe it, not the other way around.

      “Iron Age”

      You have fallen into the fallacy that the basic truths of life have somehow changed since then; they have not. Your choice of words shows more than disbelief, you are full of animosity towards Christ and His Church. “Regurgitating…It’s tired, it’s overused, and it’s not convincing.” Your opinion and attitude is basically irrelevant to whether Christ is God in the flesh or not.

      You are not pursuing truth. If you were, you would be pursuing Christ, because He is the Truth. You will never find truth apart from Christ.

      1. What basic truths of life were discovered in the Iron age that hold true today?

        Last I checked we only began to understand life and its diversity with Darwin.

        What exactly does it mean that “Jesus is the truth?”. Truth about what? This sort of figurative speech really has little meaning in the real world.

        Also, how exactly was Evid3nc3 displaying animosity? His words were polite and direct. It appears that the persecution card is being played early in the exchange.

      2. I didn’t say basic truths were discovered during the Iron Age. I implied no basic truths about life have been “discovered” after then. “Iron Age” was E3’s term, not mine.

        Human life had a definite beginning. Men behave wickedly. They often try in their own efforts to live righteously without resorting to God. They fail. God is still sovereign. He still rules from Heaven. Men still believe the gospel and are saved and sanctified. The Bible is still true.

      3. Well, to be fair you called them “basic truths of life”. If by that you mean moral behavior or moral ethics then that is something else entirely.

        How would you define wicked behavior? Is it wicked because your deity says so or for some other reason?

        If we must resort to your God to define wicked behavior then he himself must also not be guilty of the same behavior then, yes?

        I don’t think that you have honestly given this alot of thought.

      4. Wicked is anything which is contrary to the Truth about Christ and the Law of God as revealed in Scriptures. Yes, it is wicked because God says so, but more importantly, it is wicked because it is contrary to His nature.

        God is not, of course, guilty of any wicked behavior.

    2. I think everybody is missing the point…

      This is an awesome achievement!

      Somebody who was AoG finally read a book and went to college!

  3. I do not agree with the sentince which speaks of “serving the Lord while looking like the devil” which isn’t exactly Biblically grounded (except for the tattoos, which is a whole different discussion.) And my jury is still out on Charles Finney, though your article has prompted me to want to research him more thuroughly.

    HOWEVER, nearly everything else in your article I not only agree with, but it is what my heart has been screaming for the past 3 years, what I have tried hard to communicate to my fellow Pentecostals, with much verbal ascent but limited observable success or change in action.

    The watered-down “gospel” preached today is the lame foot of the church and the broken sword of those fighting on the front lines. And it refreshes me to see that I am not the only one who thinks so. God bless you.

    1. Evid3nc3, thank you for posting on our website.

      I am a Christian E3; I will admit my error. You wrote:

      “He labored at posting links to his videos on scores of Christian Music lyrics sites and has developed a huge following among skeptics.”

      That is a completely false charge. I have never placed links to my videos anywhere but my own personal Facebook page and the website for a local atheist group.

      First, I did not accurately represent the plethora of posts of your video. They are not on Christian sites; I was mistaken. In my eagerness to present you as aggressive (which is neither wrong nor a sin) I did not do due diligence and look at the sites in detail. It is not slander. It wasn’t spoken. It was not an accusation. No harm was intended. I have corrected the main post but will leave your post as evidence of my error.

      Will you forgive me for my inaccuracies?

      Second, there are scores of sites which are using your ID to make posts. I guess I cannot verify they are indeed “you”, but then again I cannot verify that the person posting on this website is “you” either.

      I will respond to the rest of your post within the next couple of days.

      1. “Will you forgive me for my inaccuracies?”

        Of course. It is unfortunate that my ID is being used but I guess it is an occupational hazard of the Internet. Thank you for correcting the article (which I might humbly point out is a move that requires only integrity, not Christianity; I’m not a Christian but I would correct a false statement that I attributed to someone).

    2. Thanks for posting on our site, Jeremy. The “looking the devil” was intended to be hyperbole. We, of course, don’t know what the devil himself looks like.

    3. While I don’t think “youth” groups are all a bad idea, why do we really need them? If the intent of our churches is to help these babes to be able to grow their understanding of the gospel from milk to meat, it seems to me that by indulging the “youth” by giving them special status allows them the privilege of remaining unmaturing Christians for an extended period of time. I have long maintained the opinion that these groups were more interested in telling the youth that they can look like the world, act like the world, and sound like the world and still be a “hip” Christian. Let’s think about Jesus as a teenager…probably not a hip Hebrew. lol

      1. Susie, Thanks for joining us again.

        Many young people grow up in “children’s church”, then move to youth group, and never sit under the preaching of the gospel (if the church even preaches the gospel) before going off to college where the professors easily dismantle their shallow “faith”.

  4. I do not agree with the sentince which speaks of “serving the Lord while looking like the devil” which isn’t exactly Biblically grounded (except for the tattoos, which is a whole different discussion.) And my jury is still out on Charles Finney, though your article has prompted me to want to research him more thuroughly.

    HOWEVER, nearly everything else in your article I not only agree with, but it is what my heart has been screaming for the past 3 years, what I have tried hard to communicate to my fellow Pentecostals, with much verbal ascent but limited observable success or change in action.

    The watered-down “gospel” preached today is the lame foot of the church and the broken sword of those fighting on the front lines. And it refreshes me to see that I am not the only one who thinks so. God bless you.

    1. Evid3nc3, thank you for posting on our website.

      I am a Christian E3; I will admit my error. You wrote:

      “He labored at posting links to his videos on scores of Christian Music lyrics sites and has developed a huge following among skeptics.”

      That is a completely false charge. I have never placed links to my videos anywhere but my own personal Facebook page and the website for a local atheist group.

      First, I did not accurately represent the plethora of posts of your video. They are not on Christian sites; I was mistaken. In my eagerness to present you as aggressive (which is neither wrong nor a sin) I did not do due diligence and look at the sites in detail. It is not slander. It wasn’t spoken. It was not an accusation. No harm was intended. I have corrected the main post but will leave your post as evidence of my error.

      Will you forgive me for my inaccuracies?

      Second, there are scores of sites which are using your ID to make posts. I guess I cannot verify they are indeed “you”, but then again I cannot verify that the person posting on this website is “you” either.

      I will respond to the rest of your post within the next couple of days.

      1. “Will you forgive me for my inaccuracies?”

        Of course. It is unfortunate that my ID is being used but I guess it is an occupational hazard of the Internet. Thank you for correcting the article (which I might humbly point out is a move that requires only integrity, not Christianity; I’m not a Christian but I would correct a false statement that I attributed to someone).

    2. Thanks for posting on our site, Jeremy. The “looking the devil” was intended to be hyperbole. We, of course, don’t know what the devil himself looks like.

    3. While I don’t think “youth” groups are all a bad idea, why do we really need them? If the intent of our churches is to help these babes to be able to grow their understanding of the gospel from milk to meat, it seems to me that by indulging the “youth” by giving them special status allows them the privilege of remaining unmaturing Christians for an extended period of time. I have long maintained the opinion that these groups were more interested in telling the youth that they can look like the world, act like the world, and sound like the world and still be a “hip” Christian. Let’s think about Jesus as a teenager…probably not a hip Hebrew. lol

      1. Susie, Thanks for joining us again.

        Many young people grow up in “children’s church”, then move to youth group, and never sit under the preaching of the gospel (if the church even preaches the gospel) before going off to college where the professors easily dismantle their shallow “faith”.

  5. A point recently made by my now 23 year old son was well taken when he said that kids from those youth groups made it MORE difficult for a young Christian to witness to other youth because they (youth group members) often times came across as obnoxious (his words, not mine) and in some way disqualified his testimony. He was never impressed with the “antics” involved with youth group mentality. He equated it with the let’s burn the Koran guy as compared with Jesus let’s reason together. I don’t want to come down on all youth group activities because I’m sure that some have been faithful to the teaching of the gospel, but I stick with my earlier post that for the most part this activity only gives a carte blance for youngsters to be allowed to not mature in a timely fashion.

  6. A point recently made by my now 23 year old son was well taken when he said that kids from those youth groups made it MORE difficult for a young Christian to witness to other youth because they (youth group members) often times came across as obnoxious (his words, not mine) and in some way disqualified his testimony. He was never impressed with the “antics” involved with youth group mentality. He equated it with the let’s burn the Koran guy as compared with Jesus let’s reason together. I don’t want to come down on all youth group activities because I’m sure that some have been faithful to the teaching of the gospel, but I stick with my earlier post that for the most part this activity only gives a carte blance for youngsters to be allowed to not mature in a timely fashion.

  7. This post is being discussed on another website: FreeRepublic. I think I’ve finally nailed down the problem. Here it is:

    So many are missing the point of the post and the odd position of this atheist. He is suggesting that his experience was real, and yet that God does not exist. If tongues is a gift of God, how can he still claim it is real? That borders on insanity. If God does not exist, he was “faking” his tongues experience, as was every other person in the the youth group. Why wouldn’t he admit that? Because it goes against his goal of suggesting he was a “real Christian”.

    Bottom Line: If there is no God, there are no “authentic” or “real” Christians. Because real Christians are made by a real God, only.

    His fatal argument is this:

    He wants you to think his experience of salvation was every bit as real as any other Christian, which is to say, a fake and a fraud.

    He won’t say it that way. But logic dictates no other position.

    1. No. You really are missing the point of the psychology involved. Have you watched all of his videos? Have you done any research into The simulacra?

      You are building a strawman of what Chris’ argument. The experience which is subjective and simulate by his brain was no different that if the object of the simation were actually real. That does not make the object real in the slightest.

      You seem to confuse the fact that if the object of the simulated experience is not real then the experience is not real. This is a non sequitir and a strawman.

      I happen to think that it is extremely brave of Chris and anyone else who despite what your brain and senses seem to be telling you, you have the prescence of mind to experiment and think logically about a phenomenon and realize that you have been fooled.

      1. JG,

        I couldn’t care less about the psychology involved. I think you are right about the subjective and objective aspects, though. E3 wants us to think that because he had the same subjective experience as some other Christians, they should draw the conclusion that the objective experience was not real. That is faulty and deceptive reasoning.

        His experience may just as “real” (subjectively) as any other others who were never Biblical Christians, but it was never real (objectively) if he did not encounter a true and living God, which he did not, it appears to be the case both from his standpoint and the standpoint of the Scriptures.

        Yes, I think he was fooled into thinking he was saved. He was not. He just thought he was, and on that, I hope we could agree.

      2. That is a very telling statement then and I think then that excludes you from critquing what Chris is talking about.

        That is not what he is saying. Once again this is a strawman of Chris’ arguments. The proposition is, if God is not real, then by what means can this phenomena of ‘experiencing’ God be explained? The simulacra explains this handily.

        As he states, the belief in God is a MEGA-belief. The personal experience was the last “node” in the system to fall back on and once this was explained the entire system was offline so to speak.

        This is nothing but the No True Scotsman fallacy. Besides that, I think you or any other believer will be hard pressed to give objective evidence of your God or any other deity.

        This is way off the mark. His mind simulated an experience and looking at the evidence there is no reason to think that this is not what happens for any believer.

  8. This post is being discussed on another website: FreeRepublic. I think I’ve finally nailed down the problem. Here it is:

    So many are missing the point of the post and the odd position of this atheist. He is suggesting that his experience was real, and yet that God does not exist. If tongues is a gift of God, how can he still claim it is real? That borders on insanity. If God does not exist, he was “faking” his tongues experience, as was every other person in the the youth group. Why wouldn’t he admit that? Because it goes against his goal of suggesting he was a “real Christian”.

    Bottom Line: If there is no God, there are no “authentic” or “real” Christians. Because real Christians are made by a real God, only.

    His fatal argument is this:

    He wants you to think his experience of salvation was every bit as real as any other Christian, which is to say, a fake and a fraud.

    He won’t say it that way. But logic dictates no other position.

    1. No. You really are missing the point of the psychology involved. Have you watched all of his videos? Have you done any research into The simulacra?

      You are building a strawman of what Chris’ argument. The experience which is subjective and simulate by his brain was no different that if the object of the simation were actually real. That does not make the object real in the slightest.

      You seem to confuse the fact that if the object of the simulated experience is not real then the experience is not real. This is a non sequitir and a strawman.

      I happen to think that it is extremely brave of Chris and anyone else who despite what your brain and senses seem to be telling you, you have the prescence of mind to experiment and think logically about a phenomenon and realize that you have been fooled.

      1. JG,

        I couldn’t care less about the psychology involved. I think you are right about the subjective and objective aspects, though. E3 wants us to think that because he had the same subjective experience as some other Christians, they should draw the conclusion that the objective experience was not real. That is faulty and deceptive reasoning.

        His experience may just as “real” (subjectively) as any other others who were never Biblical Christians, but it was never real (objectively) if he did not encounter a true and living God, which he did not, it appears to be the case both from his standpoint and the standpoint of the Scriptures.

        Yes, I think he was fooled into thinking he was saved. He was not. He just thought he was, and on that, I hope we could agree.

      2. That is a very telling statement then and I think then that excludes you from critquing what Chris is talking about.

        That is not what he is saying. Once again this is a strawman of Chris’ arguments. The proposition is, if God is not real, then by what means can this phenomena of ‘experiencing’ God be explained? The simulacra explains this handily.

        As he states, the belief in God is a MEGA-belief. The personal experience was the last “node” in the system to fall back on and once this was explained the entire system was offline so to speak.

        This is nothing but the No True Scotsman fallacy. Besides that, I think you or any other believer will be hard pressed to give objective evidence of your God or any other deity.

        This is way off the mark. His mind simulated an experience and looking at the evidence there is no reason to think that this is not what happens for any believer.

  9. “Wicked is anything which is contrary to the Truth about Christ and the Law of God as revealed in Scriptures. Yes, it is wicked because God says so, but more importantly, it is wicked because it is contrary to His nature.”

    I don’t think that you have thought alot about this to see the obvious contrast ins saying that something is evil because God says it so and also because it is contrary to his nature.

    If God deems something evil, then what precludes him from saying a certain action now thought to be evil is suddenly good? If something is objectively evil then God is following a standard that he is not in control of, thus making him not God.

    “God is not, of course, guilty of any wicked behavior.”

    This is of course absurd. Taking the lives of millions of people against their will is not wicked? This truly makes little sense.

    1. Why do you insist on attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the message. It does nothing to further your message by continuing to say things like “I don’t think you have thought about this…”. This is called the absurd fallacy with a little “obvious fallacy” added to it.

      You wrote: “If God deems something evil…”

      You mistakenly assume this is an either/or proposition. There is neither any standard of good and evil pre-existent to God because he is above all, nor is there the necessity that he be arbitrary in the application of the eternal righteousness which has been His for all eternity.

      I am prepared to answer your objection about God “taking the lives of millions of people” when you tell me what people you are talking about.

      1. Well actually it is an either or proposition with respect to whether something is absoutely good or absolutely evil OR whether God commands it to be that way.

        I am dealing with the message, it just also appears that you haven’t given it much thought since you do not spot the obivous problems of an objective standard for morals and an OMNI-max God.

        The events of Yahweh in the Penteteuch alone are enough to question his morality. The plagues on Egypt, Flood and slaughter of other cultures at the hands of the Israelites by his command should do to start.

      2. Just because you say it is either/or does not mean it is so. The standards are absolutely good because they are the reflection of an absolutely Good God. He therefore commands conformity to his own holiness, not a standard that exists outside himself.

        By what standard do you use to say what God did was wrong? Where did you get that standard? Why should anybody bow to your standards?

        God is just. Men are sinners, worthy of eternal punishment. An argument from the greater to the lesser would suggest then that if God is just in sending sinners to hell, he could not be unjust when meting out temporal punishments.

      3. It is not because I say so, as I stated orignally it does not logically follow.

        You seem to be backing down from your original statement that the reason a given action is good is because God says so and now saying that it is absolutely good because it is absolutely good (you are just positing God here, this is essentially what you are saying).

        I am asking you WHY a given action is good or bad.

        I am judging God on a given action if it does harm to the health or well being of another being. Which has a basis in the very early roots of our species.

        But I could judge God using HIS own standard and again he fails and before you say what right do you have to judge God, I say the same right that you do, because you judge God when you deem a certain action of his as good.

        God commands that it is wrong to murder, which we could define as taking the life of another being without their consent.

        According to you he does this because it is immuteably against his nature to do so.

        Yet He does this many times in the Penteteuch alone and asks others to do so at his command after commanding them not too previously.

        So is it in God’s absolute and immutable nature to murder?

        To this date I have not had a Christian actually explain WHY a given action is morally wrong. I will simply get an answer in the form of a definition and one that is clearly out of line with what is defined as God’s character.

        It is a wicked and altogether amoral statement to say that just being born makes us worthy of eternal punishment. Let alone the simple fact that eternal beings cannot be created, which is another discussion.

      4. “which we could define as taking the life of another being without their consent.”

        Why should your definition be controlling? Murder is the intentional taking of a life without just cause. It ciould include warfare, the death penalty and necessary defense. It doesn’t have much to do with consent. If someone says “kill me” and I pull the trigger, that is still murder.

        “So is it in God’s absolute and immutable nature to murder?”

        You are confusing murder with killing, they are not the same.

        “To this date I have not had a Christian actually explain WHY a given action is morally wrong”

        Amazing! No one has ever told you something was wrong because God says it is wrong? Or did you just not like that answer?

        “It is a wicked and altogether amoral statement”

        By whose standard did you decide it was wicked?

  10. “Wicked is anything which is contrary to the Truth about Christ and the Law of God as revealed in Scriptures. Yes, it is wicked because God says so, but more importantly, it is wicked because it is contrary to His nature.”

    I don’t think that you have thought alot about this to see the obvious contrast ins saying that something is evil because God says it so and also because it is contrary to his nature.

    If God deems something evil, then what precludes him from saying a certain action now thought to be evil is suddenly good? If something is objectively evil then God is following a standard that he is not in control of, thus making him not God.

    “God is not, of course, guilty of any wicked behavior.”

    This is of course absurd. Taking the lives of millions of people against their will is not wicked? This truly makes little sense.

    1. Why do you insist on attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the message. It does nothing to further your message by continuing to say things like “I don’t think you have thought about this…”. This is called the absurd fallacy with a little “obvious fallacy” added to it.

      You wrote: “If God deems something evil…”

      You mistakenly assume this is an either/or proposition. There is neither any standard of good and evil pre-existent to God because he is above all, nor is there the necessity that he be arbitrary in the application of the eternal righteousness which has been His for all eternity.

      I am prepared to answer your objection about God “taking the lives of millions of people” when you tell me what people you are talking about.

      1. Well actually it is an either or proposition with respect to whether something is absoutely good or absolutely evil OR whether God commands it to be that way.

        I am dealing with the message, it just also appears that you haven’t given it much thought since you do not spot the obivous problems of an objective standard for morals and an OMNI-max God.

        The events of Yahweh in the Penteteuch alone are enough to question his morality. The plagues on Egypt, Flood and slaughter of other cultures at the hands of the Israelites by his command should do to start.

      2. Just because you say it is either/or does not mean it is so. The standards are absolutely good because they are the reflection of an absolutely Good God. He therefore commands conformity to his own holiness, not a standard that exists outside himself.

        By what standard do you use to say what God did was wrong? Where did you get that standard? Why should anybody bow to your standards?

        God is just. Men are sinners, worthy of eternal punishment. An argument from the greater to the lesser would suggest then that if God is just in sending sinners to hell, he could not be unjust when meting out temporal punishments.

      3. It is not because I say so, as I stated orignally it does not logically follow.

        You seem to be backing down from your original statement that the reason a given action is good is because God says so and now saying that it is absolutely good because it is absolutely good (you are just positing God here, this is essentially what you are saying).

        I am asking you WHY a given action is good or bad.

        I am judging God on a given action if it does harm to the health or well being of another being. Which has a basis in the very early roots of our species.

        But I could judge God using HIS own standard and again he fails and before you say what right do you have to judge God, I say the same right that you do, because you judge God when you deem a certain action of his as good.

        God commands that it is wrong to murder, which we could define as taking the life of another being without their consent.

        According to you he does this because it is immuteably against his nature to do so.

        Yet He does this many times in the Penteteuch alone and asks others to do so at his command after commanding them not too previously.

        So is it in God’s absolute and immutable nature to murder?

        To this date I have not had a Christian actually explain WHY a given action is morally wrong. I will simply get an answer in the form of a definition and one that is clearly out of line with what is defined as God’s character.

        It is a wicked and altogether amoral statement to say that just being born makes us worthy of eternal punishment. Let alone the simple fact that eternal beings cannot be created, which is another discussion.

      4. “which we could define as taking the life of another being without their consent.”

        Why should your definition be controlling? Murder is the intentional taking of a life without just cause. It ciould include warfare, the death penalty and necessary defense. It doesn’t have much to do with consent. If someone says “kill me” and I pull the trigger, that is still murder.

        “So is it in God’s absolute and immutable nature to murder?”

        You are confusing murder with killing, they are not the same.

        “To this date I have not had a Christian actually explain WHY a given action is morally wrong”

        Amazing! No one has ever told you something was wrong because God says it is wrong? Or did you just not like that answer?

        “It is a wicked and altogether amoral statement”

        By whose standard did you decide it was wicked?

  11. Because my definition has post hoc demonstrable benefits to society and human well being.

    Your definition is in fuzzy grey area because “just cause” can vary greatly and provide a pretext for whatever evils one likes. To Hitler his cause was just and sanctioned by God.

    Nevermind that your definition is something that is not provided by your deity or your holy book and that you are extrapolating on in an attempt to excuse his actions. What possible just cause can be provided for exterminating children as he does so often?

    But it doesn’t just stop with killing, he fails to live up to other aspects of his moral law as well.

    Your stance also begs the question that if God cannot do anything against his nature then how can he create being that can act against his nature? Why make the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place?

    1. Of what good does it benefit society to allow people to kill one another by consent? You said nothing about a waiting period, proof in writing, or that the person be in their right minds.

      You are holding God to a standard you are unwilling to keep yourself.

      Hitler was wrong. And so was Jim Jones of the Jonestown Massacre, who convinced huge numbers of people to consent unto their own deaths. If a man torments his wife to where she gives consent, can the man justly kill her?

      Actually God does lay out the several cases where killing is not murder, including the three that I named: death penalty, just defense, and just warfare.

      1. “Of what good does it benefit society to allow people to kill one another by consent? You said nothing about a waiting period, proof in writing, or that the person be in their right minds.”

        This is a strange position to take and you miss the point. It is NOT taking someone’s life without their consent that benefits society. This is the golden rule, it’s fairly simple.

        “You are holding God to a standard you are unwilling to keep yourself.”

        Really? I would treat others as I would have them treat me. Your God cares not about this, he seems too caught in genocide and making sure people do not worship “false gods”. Which begs another question, if he is the only true God, why would he be so concerned about worship of something that does not exist?

        “Hitler was wrong. And so was Jim Jones of the Jonestown Massacre, who convinced huge numbers of people to consent unto their own deaths.”

        Yes but WHY was Hitler wrong according to your God? It is a terrible thing to delude someone into wasting their life obviously (a reason that I am not a Christian BTW) but it is their life to do with as they please.

        Obviously what I intended by my definition was euthanasia for extreme suffering. None the less again you miss the point. Value and regard for human life as temporal and fleeting leads to the understanding and application of the golden rule.

        “If a man torments his wife to where she gives consent, can the man justly kill her?”

        You are going way off track. Which tells me that you see my point, just choose not acknowledge it.

      2. I will not waste my time with sophistry. Your ever-changing definitions of murder make discussion worthless. Either it is as you stated (killing someone without their consent) or it is not. If it is as you stated, then all kinds of assisted suicide are justified not just when the person is “terminal”

      3. I think that is a convenient way for you to end the discussion when being taken to task on WHY a given action is wrong.

        My definition did not change, I merely expounded on consent at your behest I might add.

        The end all is you are not permitted by your dogma to say why a given action is wrong, only that your deity commands it to be so.

        I on the other hand can make moral judgements without referring to an iron age myth and determine if an action causes harm to the well being of another or not.

        For instance, if I were Abraham and God asked me to sacrifice my son I would clearly say no based on my moral judgement and promptly tell him to step off.

        You would follow Abraham’s amoral behavior and think it a good thing.

        Nuff said.

      4. “My definition did not change, I merely expounded on consent at your behest I might add.”

        As I stated earlier, by expounding on your definition you are doing the very thing you “forbid” God from doing. His commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” cannot be understood without context any more than your definition that murder is killing without consent, unless, of course, you are ready to stand by your original definition which is that if there is consent it cannot be murder.

        Your “iron age myth” refrain is just silly.

      5. And which just cause covers the killing of babies? Or the mauling of children by a she bear for calling a man bald? Or stoning a woman if she was not a virgin on your wedding night? Or stoning “witches” or people who are born gay?

        Your God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, there is not avoiding it. Thank goodness he is imaginary.

      6. I happen to think abortion is a vile act. I’m not a lone atheist in that stance. Christopher Hitchens happens to agree.

  12. Because my definition has post hoc demonstrable benefits to society and human well being.

    Your definition is in fuzzy grey area because “just cause” can vary greatly and provide a pretext for whatever evils one likes. To Hitler his cause was just and sanctioned by God.

    Nevermind that your definition is something that is not provided by your deity or your holy book and that you are extrapolating on in an attempt to excuse his actions. What possible just cause can be provided for exterminating children as he does so often?

    But it doesn’t just stop with killing, he fails to live up to other aspects of his moral law as well.

    Your stance also begs the question that if God cannot do anything against his nature then how can he create being that can act against his nature? Why make the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place?

    1. Of what good does it benefit society to allow people to kill one another by consent? You said nothing about a waiting period, proof in writing, or that the person be in their right minds.

      You are holding God to a standard you are unwilling to keep yourself.

      Hitler was wrong. And so was Jim Jones of the Jonestown Massacre, who convinced huge numbers of people to consent unto their own deaths. If a man torments his wife to where she gives consent, can the man justly kill her?

      Actually God does lay out the several cases where killing is not murder, including the three that I named: death penalty, just defense, and just warfare.

      1. “Of what good does it benefit society to allow people to kill one another by consent? You said nothing about a waiting period, proof in writing, or that the person be in their right minds.”

        This is a strange position to take and you miss the point. It is NOT taking someone’s life without their consent that benefits society. This is the golden rule, it’s fairly simple.

        “You are holding God to a standard you are unwilling to keep yourself.”

        Really? I would treat others as I would have them treat me. Your God cares not about this, he seems too caught in genocide and making sure people do not worship “false gods”. Which begs another question, if he is the only true God, why would he be so concerned about worship of something that does not exist?

        “Hitler was wrong. And so was Jim Jones of the Jonestown Massacre, who convinced huge numbers of people to consent unto their own deaths.”

        Yes but WHY was Hitler wrong according to your God? It is a terrible thing to delude someone into wasting their life obviously (a reason that I am not a Christian BTW) but it is their life to do with as they please.

        Obviously what I intended by my definition was euthanasia for extreme suffering. None the less again you miss the point. Value and regard for human life as temporal and fleeting leads to the understanding and application of the golden rule.

        “If a man torments his wife to where she gives consent, can the man justly kill her?”

        You are going way off track. Which tells me that you see my point, just choose not acknowledge it.

      2. I will not waste my time with sophistry. Your ever-changing definitions of murder make discussion worthless. Either it is as you stated (killing someone without their consent) or it is not. If it is as you stated, then all kinds of assisted suicide are justified not just when the person is “terminal”

      3. I think that is a convenient way for you to end the discussion when being taken to task on WHY a given action is wrong.

        My definition did not change, I merely expounded on consent at your behest I might add.

        The end all is you are not permitted by your dogma to say why a given action is wrong, only that your deity commands it to be so.

        I on the other hand can make moral judgements without referring to an iron age myth and determine if an action causes harm to the well being of another or not.

        For instance, if I were Abraham and God asked me to sacrifice my son I would clearly say no based on my moral judgement and promptly tell him to step off.

        You would follow Abraham’s amoral behavior and think it a good thing.

        Nuff said.

      4. “My definition did not change, I merely expounded on consent at your behest I might add.”

        As I stated earlier, by expounding on your definition you are doing the very thing you “forbid” God from doing. His commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” cannot be understood without context any more than your definition that murder is killing without consent, unless, of course, you are ready to stand by your original definition which is that if there is consent it cannot be murder.

        Your “iron age myth” refrain is just silly.

      5. And which just cause covers the killing of babies? Or the mauling of children by a she bear for calling a man bald? Or stoning a woman if she was not a virgin on your wedding night? Or stoning “witches” or people who are born gay?

        Your God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, there is not avoiding it. Thank goodness he is imaginary.

      6. I happen to think abortion is a vile act. I’m not a lone atheist in that stance. Christopher Hitchens happens to agree.

  13. “Amazing! No one has ever told you something was wrong because God says it is wrong? Or did you just not like that answer?”

    No, because it is not answer.

    This is akin to saying the sky is blue and then being asked why the sky is blue and then responding, because it is the sky!

    As I said when asked WHY a given action is moral, Christians simply fire up the Merry-Go-Round.

    “You are confusing murder with killing, they are not the same.”

    Convenient, but your holy text says otherwise. The Hebrew word used in Exodus is ratsach. Which means to dash into pieces, kill or slay. What you are doing is using a post hoc exegesis that defines the word such that it can align with what you see as the character of God.

    Ratsach says nothing about just cause, punishment, etc.

    1. You have proved too much. Does it mean to kill, slay or dash into pieces? It cannot possibly mean all of those in all the same contexts. Did Cain dash Abel into pieces? So God’s commandment does not forbid poisoning? Or did God intend that plants not be killed? Of course not. Though the word man is not in the 6th Commandment, it is implied.

      Words do not have meaning without context. Every linguist in the world knows that. The same God who said “Do Not Kill”, in the next breath ordered that the death penalty be brought against murderers. God is not two-faced. He was defining his commandment with illustrations. He does not violate his law, he defines his law.

  14. “Amazing! No one has ever told you something was wrong because God says it is wrong? Or did you just not like that answer?”

    No, because it is not answer.

    This is akin to saying the sky is blue and then being asked why the sky is blue and then responding, because it is the sky!

    As I said when asked WHY a given action is moral, Christians simply fire up the Merry-Go-Round.

    “You are confusing murder with killing, they are not the same.”

    Convenient, but your holy text says otherwise. The Hebrew word used in Exodus is ratsach. Which means to dash into pieces, kill or slay. What you are doing is using a post hoc exegesis that defines the word such that it can align with what you see as the character of God.

    Ratsach says nothing about just cause, punishment, etc.

    1. You have proved too much. Does it mean to kill, slay or dash into pieces? It cannot possibly mean all of those in all the same contexts. Did Cain dash Abel into pieces? So God’s commandment does not forbid poisoning? Or did God intend that plants not be killed? Of course not. Though the word man is not in the 6th Commandment, it is implied.

      Words do not have meaning without context. Every linguist in the world knows that. The same God who said “Do Not Kill”, in the next breath ordered that the death penalty be brought against murderers. God is not two-faced. He was defining his commandment with illustrations. He does not violate his law, he defines his law.

  15. “David Shedlock says:
    September 25, 2010 at 10:50 am
    “My definition did not change, I merely expounded on consent at your behest I might add.”

    As I stated earlier, by expounding on your definition you are doing the very thing you “forbid” God from doing. ”

    Precisely the point, although you seem to miss it.
    I’m not an eternal unchainging self proclaiming morally perfect being now am I? I can look at this actions of our ancestors, weigh their outcomes, reason, discuss and determine if they are moral.

    Your God is supposed to have a morally perfect nature. Right is right, wrong is wrong. He cannot go against that correct? Your holy book is filled atrocities of him doing exactly that, which you fail to address.

    “Your “iron age myth” refrain is just silly.”

    Saying so doesn’t make it so. Why is it any different than myths about other gods? You just happen to believe this one.

    1. Yes! We are in agreement.

      Since he is God and I am not his standard should be higher.

      This is the guy who caused space-time to exist. Created energyand from energy formed the first hydrogen atoms. He knew how to synthesize hydrogen into helium and into heavier elements such as iron and carbon. He synthesized carbon dioxide and oxygen, formed organic molecules that gave rise to proteins and then amino acids and then DNA, living organisms.

      Yet he can’t figure out how to convey something clearly as a moral right or wrong or much less give reason why.

      It’s a good thing we have natural explanations that sufficently explain how we got here and do not need the schizophrenic old man on the mountain and his violence.

      1. His standard is infinitely higher than your God-hating mockery. He has stooped to the language of men to explain himself and yet you think he ought to speak in some magic language that only elitists like yourself can understand, instead of the language of men. He has spoken: clearly and plainly. His standards are holy and right, but you are too blind to see them. The problem is not God’s light, it is your eyes. You continue to grope about for answers but fail to ask the healer for new eyes.

  16. “David Shedlock says:
    September 25, 2010 at 10:50 am
    “My definition did not change, I merely expounded on consent at your behest I might add.”

    As I stated earlier, by expounding on your definition you are doing the very thing you “forbid” God from doing. ”

    Precisely the point, although you seem to miss it.
    I’m not an eternal unchainging self proclaiming morally perfect being now am I? I can look at this actions of our ancestors, weigh their outcomes, reason, discuss and determine if they are moral.

    Your God is supposed to have a morally perfect nature. Right is right, wrong is wrong. He cannot go against that correct? Your holy book is filled atrocities of him doing exactly that, which you fail to address.

    “Your “iron age myth” refrain is just silly.”

    Saying so doesn’t make it so. Why is it any different than myths about other gods? You just happen to believe this one.

    1. Yes! We are in agreement.

      Since he is God and I am not his standard should be higher.

      This is the guy who caused space-time to exist. Created energyand from energy formed the first hydrogen atoms. He knew how to synthesize hydrogen into helium and into heavier elements such as iron and carbon. He synthesized carbon dioxide and oxygen, formed organic molecules that gave rise to proteins and then amino acids and then DNA, living organisms.

      Yet he can’t figure out how to convey something clearly as a moral right or wrong or much less give reason why.

      It’s a good thing we have natural explanations that sufficently explain how we got here and do not need the schizophrenic old man on the mountain and his violence.

      1. His standard is infinitely higher than your God-hating mockery. He has stooped to the language of men to explain himself and yet you think he ought to speak in some magic language that only elitists like yourself can understand, instead of the language of men. He has spoken: clearly and plainly. His standards are holy and right, but you are too blind to see them. The problem is not God’s light, it is your eyes. You continue to grope about for answers but fail to ask the healer for new eyes.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Caffeinated Thought of the Day: Ruled by Infinite Intelligence

Shane Vander Hart: We are told that ever since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen, It is plain if you have eyes to see.

A Term That Should Die: Post-Christian

Over the years I’ve heard a term used to describe American culture…

Sing to the LORD a New Song (Psalm 149)

149:1 Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, his…

Don’t Confuse Our Job With God’s

British-born Canadian theologian J.I. Packer addresses a common question asked of those…