After claiming that everything he believes is based upon evidence, “Evid3nc3” has jumped the shark, atheistically speaking. All it took to provoke him was the assertion that the God of Scripture avenges sin and sinners with eternal wrath, and Sovereignly saves some by grace alone.

To these Biblical truths, Chris Redford responded:

I believe in fair treatment. I believe in helping others when they fall into bad patterns of behavior. I don’t believe in damning them and punishing them. If I had infinite power and infinite wisdom, I would use it to teach people how to live harmoniously and eliminate self-destructive behaviors from their lives.

True love forgives, helps, and uplifts people. If there is a God that does anything other than that with their power, they aren’t worthy of my worship in my eyes. I would gladly go to Hell for eternity before giving in to such bloodthirsty and malevolent God. I’m not afraid to stand up for what I believe is truly right, even if that meant I would spend an eternity in Hell.

I’m curious: would you be willing to go to Hell for eternity if it meant standing up for what is truly right? Would you stand against a God that was evil? (bold added)

My response is rather straightforward:

Who decides what is fair? or what “bad patterns” are? Why are self-destructive behaviors bad? Where did you get your definition of “true love”? Why is better to uplift than tear down? Where did you get your definitions of malevolent? What is wrong with being bloodthirsty? Animals do it all the time. Are you prepared to unequivocally condemn the murder of unborn children? What study of science told you what is right and wrong?  How do you define evil, scientifically?

Without God, how could I even know what is evil, and what is good?

Chris has commented scores of times on Caffeinated Theology in response to posts challenging his public pronouncements proclaiming his atheistic viewpoints. Generally, he makes the claim that he does not believe in God because he has not been shown sufficient evidence that He indeed exists. He considers himself an honest enquirer and a scientist who will always bow to the truth wherever he finds it.

My position, which I believe to be the Biblical one, is that not only does Chris already know God exists, he has willfully disregarded that knowledge and has pursued a path of rebellion against God. He dismisses such comments with his favorite catchphrases: “Dimestone Freud” and “Baseless Assertions”.

I will not cover old ground here. You can follow the posts and comments from the other threads quite easily, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

My position on morality is not complicated.   If an atheist claims that everything they assert is evidence based, they cannot reasonably, rationally, and consistently make any moral claims whatsoever.  Science can only tell us what is.  It cannot tell us what ought to be.  Of course, Chris can feel free to express his opinion, but it will not be science or evidence based.  It will be his preference.  Shall we do experiments to determine what is right and wrong?    Take a poll?   Look to “great” godless  philosophers of old whose observations Chris should dismiss since they are their own observations, subject to error?


You May Also Like

Hell and Desmond Tutu

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has taken his stand: “I would refuse to go…

Here I Stand: Doctrine of God

I started this series  standing on the Scriptures which are  foundational to…

Nice People Are Difficult to Save

Obviously God can save whomever He wants, but I have noticed in…

Podcast: The Nature of God

Are you a functional atheist?  Many people profess one thing, but lives…